Sifting Through Loose Change- The 9-11 Research Companion by VegasStreetProphet


									          Sifting Through
           Loose Change
    The 9-11Research Companion to
 A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
        using an illustrated transcript

covering the portion of the film from 00:00:00 to 00:12:00

    Which points                      have value?

                Which            don't?
        Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
        and Your Critical Thinking Skills

    "March 13th, ... Operation Northwoods"
    "September 2000. The Project for a New American Century ... some
     catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
    "July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein ... signs a 3.2 billion dollar, 99-
     year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex"
    "September 6th, 2001. 3,150 put options are placed on United
     Airlines' stock."
    "September 11th, 2001"
    Hunter S. Thompson
    "I didn't see any windows on sides. It was not a normal flight that I
     had ever seen."
    Hunter S. Thompson

                         Hide Replies                 Show Replies

 "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an
 airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center."
 -National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice

 "There were lots of warnings."
 -Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

 "No warnings."
 -Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

 "Your government failed you, and I failed you."
 -White House Advisor Richard Clarke
Loose Change misses an opportunity to expose the blatant falsity of Rice's May
16, 2002 comment. It could have mentioned the pre-9/11/01 NORAD drills using
scenarios of jetliners crashing into the Towers. It does so three minutes later, but
the connection to Rice's statement is lost.

   March 13th, 1962. Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
   presents a proposal to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, named
   "Operation Northwoods." The document proposed staging terrorist attacks in
   and around Guantanamo Bay, to provide a pretext for military intervention in
   Cuba. The plans included: Starting rumors about Cuba using clandestine
   radio. Landing friendly Cubans inside the base to stage attacks. Starting
   riots at the main gate. Blowing up ammunition inside the base, starting fires.
   Sabotaging aircrafts and ships on the base. Bombing the base with mortar
   shells. Sinking a ship outside the entrance, staging funerals for mock
   victims. Staging a terror campaign in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC.
   And finally, destroying a drone aircraft, over Cuban waters. The passengers,
   federal agents in reality, would allegedly be college students on vacation. A
   plane at Eglin Air Force Base would be painted and numbered as a
   duplicate of a registered civil aircraft belonging to a CIA front in Miami. The
   duplicate would be substituted for the real plane and loaded with the
   passengers. The real plane would be converted into a drone. The two
   planes would rendezvous south of Florida. The passenger laden plane
   would land at Eglin Air Force Base to evacuate its passengers and return to
   its original status. The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and
   over Cuban waters transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by
   remote control. The plan was rejected by McNamara, and President John F.
   Kennedy personally removes Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Loose Change describes in detail elements of Operation Northwoods, but doesn't
draw any conclusions from it at this point in the film. Operation Northwoods is
often cited as evidence of two conclusions:

      The US officials have demonstrated an ability to contemplate killing US
       civilians in a false-flag operation in order to achieve strategic objectives.
      That one or more of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11 were replaced by
       decoy military aircraft. The original planes landed and deboarded, while
      decoys were used to fly into buildings.

Operation Northwoods is evidence for the first conclusion but not for the second
one. Perhaps a failure to understand this distinction has inclined the makers of
Loose Change to be fooled by hoax theories about the attack.

   December 1st, 1984. A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from
   Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel
   research. Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and
   22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.

This and other facts show that remote-control technology for precise control of
jetliners has existed since 1984. Remote control is a major component in many
alternative theories of the attack. Given the advances in automated flight control
systems since the 1980s, the implementation of remote control for the 9/11/01
attack could have been much simpler than many people realize, perhaps involving
nothing more than the uploading of a Trojan horse program into the Boeing 757
and 767s' standard equipment.

   August, 1997. The cover of FEMA's "Emergency Response to
   Terrorism" depicts the World Trade Center in crosshairs.

That doesn't seem suspicious in and of itself, given the 1993 bombing, but it does
when combined with pre-9/11/01 scenarios involving planes crashing into the

   February 28th, 1998. The Global Hawk, Raytheon's Unmanned-aircraft-
   vehicle, completes its first flight over Edwards Air Force Base in California,
   at an altitude of 32000 feet, cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner.

What does this have to do with electronic hijack of jetliners?

   1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are
   flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Clearly, Loose Change means to say that the exercises simulated airliners being flown
into those buildings.

   June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the
   World Trade Center in crosshairs.

Find story here.

   September, 2000. The Project for a New American Century, a neo-
   conservative think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald
   Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, releases their report entitled
   "Rebuilding America's Defenses." In it, they declare that
   the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely
   to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new
   Pearl Harbor.

Find the document here.

   October 24th, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training
   exercises called MASCAL, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the
   building. Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the
   Pentagon, participates in this exercise before retiring to take a job at
   American Airlines, where, less than a year later, his Boeing 757 allegedly
   crashes into the building.

According to reports such as this one, Charles Burlingame left the Navy to join
American Airlines in 1979, but had a reserve assignment at the Pentagon until
1996, when he retired with the rank of Captain. That was long before the
MASCAL exercise Loose Change states he participated in.

   April, 2001. NORAD plans an exercise in which a plane is flown into the
   Pentagon, but is rejected as "too unrealistic".

The exercise didn't involve flying a plane into the Pentagon. It only simulated
such a crash. Nonetheless, it adds to the evidence that officials lied when they said
they had no idea planes might be intentionally crashed into nationally symbolic
targets, including the headquarters of the US military.

   June, 2001. The Department of Defense initiates new instructions for military
   intervention in the case of a hijacking. It states that for all non-immediate
   responses, the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the
   Secretary of Defense.

Some critics dismiss Directive CJCSI 3610.01A as having anything to do with
impairing military response on 9/11/01 since it provides an exception for
emergencies. However, the supporting documents state that, even in the case of
emergencies, requests for "potentially lethal assistance" would still require
approval by the Secretary of Defense.

   Attorney General John Ashcroft begins flying on chartered jets, for the
   remainder of his term, due to a "threat assessment" by the FBI.

Ashcroft was questioned about this during the 9/11 Commission hearings. He
stated that he flew on commercial aircraft on September 3, 2001, and that the
advice not to fly on commercial aircraft was based on threats to his personal safety
not related to terrorism. He denied flying on chartered jets.
   July 4th, 2001. Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998,
   receives medical attention at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he is
   visited by a local chief of the CIA.

This story was reported in The Guardian, which cited the french newspaper Le
Figaro. The CIA and the Dubai Hospital both denied the reports.

   July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade
   Center 7, signs a 3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade
   Center complex, six weeks before 9-11. Included in the lease is a 3.5 billion
   dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.

For more information on the lease and insurance arrangements, see this page.

   September 6th, 2001. 3,150 put options are placed on United Airlines' stock.
   A put option is a bet that a stock will fall. That day, put options were more
   than 4 times its daily average.

What makes this anomalous is the fact that the week preceding 9/11/01 was
uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.

   Bomb sniffing dogs are pulled from the World Trade Center, and security
   guards end two-weeks of 12 hour shifts.
According to the story the bomb-sniffing dogs and extended
shifts had been going on for two weeks in response to phoned-in threats.

   September 7th, 2001. 27,294 put options are placed on Boeing's stock,
   more than 5 times the daily average.

Critics dismiss any connection of this to the attack by noting that Boeing stock
had fallen in the previous year. The question is, was there a decline in stock prices
that week corresponding to the surge in put options? Apparently not.

September 8th, 2001. The put/call ratios for United Airlines surged to 25 times the
daily average.

   September 10th, 2001. 4,516 put options are placed on American Airlines,
   almost 11 times its daily average.

This might be explained as a reaction to announcements by American Airlines the
previous Friday of higher-than-expected losses.

   Newsweek reports that a number of top Pentagon brass cancel their flight
   plans for the next morning.

Read the story here. It is possible that this and several of the other warnings to
cancel travel plans were part of planned distraction to reinforce the idea that the
attacks were the work of Islamic radicals whose plans were partially known to US
government insiders.

   San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a phone call warning him not to
   fly the next morning. Pacifica Radio later reveals that this phone call came
   directly from National Security Advisor Condolleeza Rice.

Read the story here.

   And in Pakistan, at a military hospital, all of the urologists are replaced by a
   special team, in order to host their guest of honor, Osama Bin Laden, who is
   carefully escorted inside to "be watched carefully and looked after."

"Guest of honor" are the words of Loose Change. The relevant passage in the
CBSNews article reads:
"On that night," said a medical worker who wanted her identity protected, "they
moved out all the regular stff in the urology department and sent in a secret team
to replace them." She said it was treatment for a very special person and "the
special team was obviously up to no good."

   September 11th, 2001. The National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly,
   Virginia is preparing for an exercise in which a small corporate jet crashes
   into their building. NORAD is in the middle of a number of military exercises.
   "Sept. 11 was Day II of Vigilant Guardian, an exercise that would pose an
   imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide."
   -Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins

   The first, Vigilant Guardian, is described as "An exercise that would pose an
   imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide".
   "Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to
   locations in Alaska and Northern Canada."
   -Toronto Star, December 9th, 2001

   The second, Northern Vigilance, moved fighter jets to Canada and Alaska to
   fight off an imaginary Russian fleet. Three F-16s from Washington DC's
   National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the Pentagon, are
   flown 180 nautical miles away for a training mission in North Carolina. This
   left 14 fighter jets to protect the entire United States.

Our compilation of war games shows what Loose Change misses: the number of
exercises scheduled on 9/11/01 requires us to accept an incredible coincidence if
the official story is true.

Even if there were only 14 fighter jets, it doesn't begin to explain the failure to
protect the Pentagon, just 11 miles from Andrews Air Force base. Loose Change,
despite its breadth, sidesteps the whole matter of NORAD's amazing failure to
defend the skies -- and the stand-down it implies.

         Hi, Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked
         aircraft headed towards New York. And we need you guys to, we
         need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help
         us out.
         [NORAD Command]: Is this real or exercise?
         No, this is not exercise, not a test.
   [footage of North Tower strike]
   Do we wanna think about scrambling an aircraft?
   Oooh, God I don't know.
   That's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10
   Uh, yeah, you know, everybody just left the room.

This excerpt of air traffic controller communications can easily be spun to support
the incompetence theory.
         [Radio interviewer]: The first question I have is basically to get from
         you a sense of how you would rate the American media in their
         coverage of the events of the attack last September?
         [Hunter S. Thompson]: well let's see uuhm, shamefully is a word that
         comes to mind.

Loose Change doesn't provide direct support for Thompson's statement. See this
analysis of the media's response to the attack.

         [news anchor]: This just in you are looking at obviously very disturbing
         live shot there. That is the World Trade Center and we have
         unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane had crashed into one of
         the towers of the World Trade Center.

         [Hunter S. Thompson]: but overall, the American journalism was
         cowed, and intimidated by this massive flag-sucking, this patriotic,
         orgy. You know if you're criticizing the President it's unpatriotic and
         there's something wrong with you and you may be a terrorist ...
         So, so in that sense, Hunter S. Thompson, there's not enough room
         for dissenting voices?
         Well, there's plenty of room, just not enough people that are willing to
         take the risk.

A deeper problem is that not enough people who are willing to challenge the official story
of 9/11 are willing separate false from valid claims of official complicity.
         I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft or to be
         more specific ... some people said they thought they saw a missile.
         [Unidentified voiceover]: There was definitely a blue logo, it was like a
         circular logo on the front of the plane, ah It definitely did not look like a
         commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides.
         Mark, if that what you say is true those could be cargo planes ... You
         said you didn't see any windows in the sides?
         I didn't see any windows on sides. It was a not a normal flight that I
         had ever seen, at an airport, it was a plane that had a blue ah logo on
         the front and, and it just ... it did not look like it belonged in this area.

Well, I guess it's some progress that Loose Change dropped the pod, which was in
the first edition.

How anyone could take such a report as evidence of anything is beyond me.
Anyone who could see windows in a jetliner two miles away and traveling 500
mph would have to have super-human powers.

         [Hunter S. Thompson]: It's sort of a herd mentality a lemming-like
         mentality. If you don't go with the flow you're anti-American and
         therefore a suspect.

Thompson did not endorse the cargo plane theory or missile-pod theories, but the
viewer might get the impression that he did from the way the missile and no-
windows "witness" excerpts are spliced between this and the preceding excerpt of

         [On-scene TV news reporter]: This is as close as we can get to
         the base of the World Trade Center. You can see the firemen
         assembled here, the police officers, FBI agents, and you can see
         the two Towers, a huge explosion, now raining debris on all of us.
         We better get out of the way.

It was commonplace for reporters to describe the onset of the destruction of the
South Tower as an explosion. Such perceptions would rapidly be replaced by the
official story that they had "collapsed."

   [video of the South Tower exploding]

   [music, video of WTC 7 collapsing, video of other large buildings being
   destroyed by controlled demolitions]

The side-by-side comparison of WTC 7's collapse and the demolition of other
buildings is one of the more compelling parts of Loose Change.

   [footage of the explosion of the North Tower]
   [Hunter S. Thompson]: You sort of wonder, when something like that
   happens, who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and motive? You
   just gotta look at this basic things. I don't assume that I know the truth about
   what went on that day. And yeah, I just look around looking for who had the
   motive, who had the opportunity, who had the equipment, who had the ah
   will ...
   I've spent enough time on the inside, well the White House, and, you know
   campaigns, and I've known enough of the people who do these things, to
   know that, the public version of the news, of an event, is never really what
   happened. And these people I think are willing to take that even further.
   [footage of debris raining on a street]
   It seems a very long bow to me, but are you sort of suggesting that this
   worked in a favor of the Bush administration?
   Oh absolutely, ... absolutely.

For specifics on motives insiders had for carrying out the attack, see this section of

                    Sifting Through
                     Loose Change
             The 9-11Research Companion to
         A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
                using an illustrated transcript
                     VOLUME 1: TIMELINE

          VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93
             VOLUME 5: ODDITIES
      covering the portion of the film from 00:12:00 to 00:30:13

           Which points                         have value?

                       Which              don't?
               Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
               and Your Critical Thinking Skills

    "First, Let's meet Hani Hanjour."
    "Second, Flight 77 managed to tear light poles completely out of the
     ground. without damaging either the wings or the light poles
    "Third, whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off the lawn."
    "Fourth, Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?"
    "Fifth, why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent
     with a Boeing 757?"
    "Sixth, the eyewitnesses."
    "Seventh, the FBI was there within minutes to confiscate the tapes ...
     that captured the entire thing."
                            Hide Replies                  Show Replies


   "Here we're talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled
   with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible)
   that damaged the World Trade Center."
   -Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Parade Magazine on
   October 12th, 2001, from inside the Pentagon

This slide is played for more than 40 seconds, apparently for dramatic emphasis.

Evidence for the missile theory? -- Hardly. A jetliner used as a weapon is often
referred to as a missile. Alternatively, Rumsfeld's remark may have been
calculated to seed the no-plane hoax.

   9:38. Arlington, Virginia. Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330-degree turn
   at 530 miles per hour, descending 7000 feet in two and a half minutes to
   crash American Airlines Flight 77 into the ground floor of the Pentagon.

Loose Change hints at but fails to explicate a set of facts about the attack that are
undisputed -- facts relating to the location of the strike. The daring maneuver
resulted in the plane hitting the newly renovated, sparsely occupied portion of the

   "[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did
   without going into a high speed stall."
   "The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers.
   That plane would have fallen out of the sky..."
   -Russ Wittenburg, commercial and Air Force Pilot who flew two of the planes used
   on 9/11, WingTV

Russ Wittenburg did not fly two of the planes used on 9/11, he flew Boeing 757s
and 767s -- two of the types of planes used on 9/11.

Wittenburg may be correct that flying a 757 at 532 mph at low altitude -- the
approach speed given in FEMA's Pentagon Building Performance Report --
would precipitate a high-speed stall. However, that doesn't support Loose
Change's conclusion that he attack plane was not a 757. Perhaps it was flying at
only 400 mph. At that speed, it would only have been pulling about 0.57 Gs --
well under the performance ratings of a 757.

   Its final approach took it directly across Interstate 395, knocking light poles
   out of the ground and bouncing off the lawn before impact.

Although a few of the numerous eyewitness reports suggest that a portion of the
plane hit the ground before impact, neither the official story nor the crash
evidence support the idea that the plane "bounced off the lawn" before impact.
Loose Change attacks this straw man argument repeatedly as if it's a key
underpinning of the account of Flight 77's crash.

   First, Let's meet Hani Hanjour. Hanjour had come to
   Freeway Airport in Boui Maryland one month earlier
   seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Hanjour
   went on three test runs in the second week of August, he
   had trouble controlling, and landing, a single-engine
   Cessna 172.

Moreover, instructors at the Freeway Airport were so unimpressed with Hanjour's
flying skills, they declined his request to rent a Cessna.

         Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and
         I'm the chief flight instructor here at
         Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically
         what happened with him is... He
         showed at the airport and wanted to get
         checked out in the aircraft you see, he
         was already certified he didn't come to
         us for flight training.
         Yeah, he already had a pilot's license.
         He already earned it, it was private, instrument, commercial at a
         school in Arizona. I don't remember the name of the school. He
         already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have
         pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to
         rent our aircraft.
         Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?
         This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get checked-out as we call it
         to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of
         our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the
         process that he was going through. And consensus was, he was very
         quiet, average, or below average piloting skills, English was very poor.
         So, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his
         demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.
The flight instructor's interview isn't very informative -- not nearly as interesting
as the words of another instructor reported by the New York Times: "I'm still to
this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at

   Regardless, air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport that were
   tracking Flight 77 all thought that it was a military plane.

   "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought ... all of us
   experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane"
   -Danielle O'Brien, ATC at Dulles International Airport ABCNews (9/14/01)

This is misleading because it omits context. In the ABCNews article, O'Brien goes
on to say "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe," making it clear that the
air traffic controllers' opinion was based on the way the plane was being flown.
The implication that the maneuvers were beyond the capabilities of a 757 is false.

   Second, the lightpoles ... On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet on
   route to Houston to pick up George Bush, Senior clipped a single light
   pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby
   Airport. The wing ripped off upon impact, scattering debris over a
   hundred yards. And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear five light poles
   completely out of the ground, without damaging either the wings or the
   light poles themselves. Instead, they seemed to have just popped out of
   the ground.
The story does not support the idea,
implied by Loose Change, that the Gulfstream
II crashed because it clipped a lamp-post.
(The plane crashed 1.5 miles from the
airport.) But even if it did, the Loose Change's
errors would include:

      Ignoring the differences between the
       two crashes: small (Gulfstream-II)
       versus large (Boeing 757) aircraft; low-
       speed (150 mph) versus high-speed (530 mph) impact; and potential
       differences in composition of the lamp poles at the two different crash sites.
      Asserting without evidence that Flight 77's wings weren't damaged by the
       lamp poles.
      Claiming that the lamp poles near the Pentagon weren't damaged, when the
       very photographs it displays clearly show that poles are severed off.
      Implying that lamp poles breaking off at their bases is peculiar, when in fact
       they are built with breakaway bases for the safety of motorists.

   Third, you only have to look at photos from that day to realize that
   whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off the lawn. If Flight 77 had
   crash landed and skidded into the Pentagon, it would have looked like
This is a straw man argument based on the baseless claim that the plane bounced
off the lawn. However, parts of the plane did hit obstacles on its low-angled
approach. The left engine apparently clipped a retaining wall, whose damage can
be seen in the far right of the adjacent photograph.

   Instead it looked like this, without a single scratch on the lawn.
In the photograph Loose Change features (shown above), the chain-link fence
behind the firefighters appears close to the building. However, it is actually
about 100 feet from the facade. The photograph to the right shows that the lawn
within 100 feet of the facade was not "without a single scratch."

   Fourth, Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?
   You know, it, it might've appeared that way but
   from my closeup inspection there's no
   evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere
   near the Pentagon. The only sight is the actual
   side of the building that's crashed in, and as I
   said the only pieces left that you can see are
   small enough that you can pick up in your
   hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like
   that anywhere around, which would indicate, that the entire plane crashed
   into the side of the Pentagon ...
To the contrary, there are many traces. Available photographs show engine
parts, landing gear parts, and scraps of fuselage that match the livery of an
American Airlines Boeing 757.

The unidentified FOX reporter may not have realized that the plane was going
500 mph or had any familiarity with the results of high speed plane crashes. The
plane did not crash near the Pentagon, it punctured through its first-floor facade.
The numerous photographs of aircraft debris show areas that may not have been
visible to the reporter.

   The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel
   vaporized the entire plane. Indeed. From these pictures, it seems that
   there is absolutely no trace of a Boeing 757.

This is another straw man argument. Although someone may have said the plane
was vaporized, it has never been the official explanation. FEMA's Building
Performance Study describes the plane plowing into the first floor. The extent of
the facade punctures meant that the impact injected the vast majority of debris
inside the building, where it was not readily visible.
The very photograph that Loose Change uses to claim there is "no trace of a
Boeing 757" shows a great deal of crash debris. And other photographs, such as
the one on the right, show scraps identifiable as pieces of an American Airlines

   But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo-jet then how could
   investigators identify 184 out of 189 people found at the Pentagon? The
   Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, which was responsible for the
   task, was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville. Keep that
   in mind for later.

Even ignoring the fact that a 757 is not a "jumbo-jet," and that the plane was not
"incinerated," the idea that even severe fires render bodies unidentifiable is not
supported. The 2003 Station Night Club fire in Rhode Island killed 97 people, but
did not prevent their identification. Even if the conditions of a jetliner crash
created especially severe fires, the flames would not be uniformly distributed, and
bodies, which are 70% moisture, would tend to outlast aluminum, which burns
fairly easily.

   So what is a Boeing 757 made of? I called Boeing to ask, but ... The
   operator informed me that Boeing refuses to give out any information
   regarding the construction of their aircraft. Due to the attacks of September
The point of this being? Is it a suspicious secret what planes are made out of?

   But what we do know is that a 757 has two Pratt & Whitney engines
   made of steel and titanium alloy which are nine feet in diameter twelve
   feet long and weight six tons each.
This oversimplifies the
size of a turbofan engine
and its parts. Only the fan
has a diameter of (slightly
less than) nine feet, while
all of the other
compressors and turbines
have only a fraction of that

   Titanium has a melting point of 1688 degrees Celsius. Jet fuel, also known
   as kerosene, is a hydrocarbon, which can retain a constant temperature of
   1120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes, but only if the fuel is maintained.
   The fuel would have burned off immediately upon impact. Therefore, it is
   scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by

This is a straw man argument (no one claims the engines were vaporized)
following two errors:

      Jet fuel won't burn at 1120 Celsius unless it's burned in pre-heated or
       pressurized air.
      The jet fuel did not burn off "immediately" but burned for several minutes.

   Likewise, the two engines should have been found relatively intact at the
   Pentagon. Instead, there was a single turbojet engine approximately
   three feet in diameter found inside the building.

No, a turbine rotor (not engine) was found outside the building.

Perhaps "engines should have been found relatively intact" if the Pentagon were
made out of bamboo. Since when has an engine survived a 500-mph impact with a
masonry building relatively intact?

Furthermore, a number of other engine parts were not only found, but documented
in photographs. The 3-foot-diameter rotor in the photograph was outside of the
building, and is consistent with a Boeing 757.

   After this photo was published by American Free Press readers wrote in
   to suggest that the turbine was a piece was auxiliary power unit (APU)
   mounted in the tail section of a 757.

   Chris Bollyn contacted Honeywell in Phoenix, Arizona, the manufacturer
   of a 757's APU. An expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity told
   him that: "There's no way that's an APU wheel.” Bollyn then contacted
   Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, the two companies that manufacture
   757 engines. Pratt & Whitney pointed Bollyn towards Rolls-Royce and
   John W Brown a spokesman for Rolls-Royce told Bollyn that:

   "it is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not
   the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

Why? Because Bollyn had contacted the Indiana plant that makes engine parts for
small planes. Not working in a factory that services 757 engines, Brown wouldn't
be expected to be familiar with the part.

   In an article written by Karl Schwartz, President and Chief Executive Officer
   of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-nets Security Systems, He believes
   that the piece is a JT8D turbojet engine from the US Air Force A3
   Skywarrior. The piece in the FEMA photo is the front shaft bearing housing.
   Jet engines have a center shaft which must be balanced as well as bare
   seals on the front and back. The [FEMA] photo shows the front seal and a
   rotor hub missing its fan blades. These blades are easily removed in a
   collision such as the one found at the Pentagon.

The graphic at the right shows that the photograph that Karl Schwarz tells us is
from an Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine obviously is not.
Nor do A-3 Skywarriors have JT8D engines -- they have J57-P-10 engines.

   The United States Air Force has
   only a few A3's left in operation,
   And they're stored in Van Nuys
   California at Hughes Aircraft,
   which is now better known as
   Raytheon. So if this piece didn't
   come from a 757, then where?
   And where are the engines from
   Flight 77?

This digression into the A-3 theory is a product of a chain of errors. Loose

      Mis-describes a turbine rotor as a turbojet engine.
      Cites a sensationalist story in American Free Press suggesting that the rotor
       isn't from an APU or AE 3007H (the kind of engine used in a Global
      Showcases the pet theory of Karl Schwarz, whose only qualifications
       mentioned are being President and Chief Executive Officer of two
       companies of questionable existence. Loose Change presents no evidence
       for the A-3 Skywarrior theory but does show us a picture of an A-3 firing a
   The second identifiable piece of debris was allegedly a piece of the
   fuselage. Skeptics have claimed that this is proof that Flight 77 hit the
   Pentagon. But this piece could have come from any American Airlines
   plane. And why is it not singed or scratched after a 530 mph impact and
   a subsequent fireball?

The second of how many pieces? To
listen to Loose Change one would think
there were exactly three pieces of
aircraft debris at the Pentagon crash site.

Should the piece have been singed by
the crash? It's not difficult to find
photographs of unsinged pieces in other
jetliner crashes, such as the remains of a DC-10 in the photograph to the right.

   The third piece of debris is a diffuser case. Lets look a little close at the
   diffuser case of a 757. Do you see the triangular bezels around the
   openings? Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the

Loose Change shows a diagram of a diffuser case that doesn't match the diffuser
case debris in the photograph. But what engine does their diagram illustrate? Is it
either of the two types that 757s come equipped with: Pratt & Whitney PW2000
engines or Rolls-Royce RB211 engines? Flight 77 apparently had RB211-535E4B
engines. The diagram at the right shows an RB211-535 series engine, whose
diffuser case does appear to match the debris.

   The remainder of the debris was light enough to have been carried by hand.

Some of the parts that Loose Change fails to mention include landing gear wheel
hubs, a landing gear shaft, and pieces of fuselage about the size of a person.

   And employees at the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box
   shrouded in a large tarp. Why the mystery?

In fact, the blue object is a tent, not a box
with mysterious plane parts, as Russell
Pickering has pointed out on Other
photographs show views of blue-and-white
tents that clearly match the light object
being carried by the men.

   If Flight 77 was vaporized on impact, it would be the first time in aviation
   history. For example. August 15th, 2005. Helios Airways Flight 522, a
   Boeing 737, en route to Athens, Greece crashed into a hillside at full
   speed. 121 passengers, all dead. Fire. Tail sections. Wing sections.
   Engines. Cockpit. Bodies. Catch my drift?

Loose Change continues to work the 'vaporizing plane' straw man. The Pentagon
crash may have left less large debris than the Helios Airways crash, but it's hardly
surprising, given the estimated 530-mph speed of the Pentagon crash. Press
reports of the Helios Airways crash do not appear to support Loose Change's
assertion that the 737 hit the ground "at full speed."

   Fifth, why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a
   Boeing 757?
   [computer graphic crash simulation]
To the contrary, it is consistent in every way with the crash of
a 757. That includes:

      Damage to facade fitting the frontal profile of a 757,
       with punctures in the paths of the densest parts of the
       plane, and breached limestone in the paths of the wing
      Damage to a swath of columns inside the building,
       with the columns consistently bent in the direction of
       the plane's travel.
      Damage to the generator and retaining wall consistent
       with the paths of a 757's two engines.
      Fires spread far along the facade immediately after

   These photos were taken before the roof of the outer ring had collapsed.
   The only damage to the outer wall is a single hole, no more than sixteen
   feet in diameter.

This is wildly inaccurate. Pre-collapse photographs clearly show that the facade
was punctured for a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor. To make its point
Loose Change shows you a photo in which fire spray conceals the broad first-floor
damage, and reveals only the 18-foot-wide second floor damage.
   A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet
   high, has a 124 foot wingspan, and
   weighs almost 100 tons. Are we
   supposed to believe that it disappeared
   into this hole, without leaving any
   wreckage on the outside?

No, the vast majority passed through the punctures in the first-floor facade, which
extended more than 96 feet in width. Parts that didn't penetrate the building
comprise the debris fields outside the building.

The graphic used by Loose Change is misleading because fire foam spray
conceals the broad first-floor damage.

   Why is there no damage from the wings, the vertical stabilizer, or the
   engines would have slammed into the building Remember how big the
   engines were? If 6 tons of steel and titanium slammed into the Pentagon at
   530 mph, They would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very
   distinct imprints. And yet, the only damage on the outside of the Pentagon is
   this single hole, with no damage from where the engines would have hit.

In fact, the engines would have easily cleared the 96-foot-wide impact punctures
on the first floor. As for the ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer, there was
extensive damage to the limestone facade far to either side of the primary impact
puncture, and scored limestone on the fourth-floor facade -- easily consistent with
the impacts of such light components of the airframe.

Again Loose Change displays a photograph in which smoke obscures most of the
first-floor punctures. To say there was no damage from where the engines would
have hit is a blatant falsehood contradicted by even that photograph.
   Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact?

Maybe because they were made of blast-resistant polycarbonate nearly two inches thick?

   Why are the cable spools directly in front of the hole completely

First, the cable spools were not "directly in front of
the hole." They were between 25 and 80 feet from the
facade. (The photograph at the left, taken from about
100 feet from the facade, gives a sense of the
distances between the spools and the facade.) The
spools appear close in the previous photograph
because of the foreshortening caused by the
photographer's distance of about 500 feet. Second,
the spools were obviously not untouched, one being
visibly damaged and knocked over. The others may
have been disturbed as well.
   And as for the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole approximately 16
   feet in diameter, found on the other side of the C ring, three rings from the
   impact. For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would
   have had to smash through 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete.

No, the C-ring punch-out hole is 12 feet in
diameter, not 16 feet. And its being made by
the aircraft didn't require that the aircraft
punch through several walls as the passage
implies. In fact, the debris that made the hole
didn't have to smash through any steel-
reinforced concrete, since only the columns
were of such construction, with the infill
being brick backed by Kevlar. The debris
would not have to penetrate any intervening
masonry walls, since the C-, D-, and E-rings
were merged on the first and second floors.

   The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of light-weight carbon.
   This is what usually happens to the nose of a commercial airliner in a
   plane crash. If the nose caused this hole, where is the rest of the debris
   from the plane?
This is another straw man, since the official story does not blame the nose
(which, by the way, is only the frontmost portion of the fuselage, which is about
150 feet long, and contains many materials heavier than carbon).

The photograph shown by Loose Change shows the punch-out hole at a time
after the considerable debris that was originally piled around it had been

   So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer
   ring of the Pentagon, smash through 9 feet of
   steel reinforced concrete and leave another 16
   foot hole? A cruise missile. This is what
   Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade
   looked like after a Tomahawk cruise missile
   had hit it. See any similarities?

After repeating two gross errors flagged above (16-foot hole, and 9 feet of steel-
reinforced concrete) Loose Change proposes an idea for which there is no
evidence whatsoever, by selectively showing the Pentagon's second-floor damage
and highlighting its superficial resemblance to two window bays in a Belgrade
building destroyed by a cruise missile.

   Sixth, the eyewitnesses. Some saw a huge
   hundred-ton commercial airliner.
   [Mike Walter]: And I looked off, I was, you
   know looked out my window I saw this plane,
   jet, American Airlines jet coming.
   Some saw a small, 8- to 20-passenger
   commuter plane.
   [Witness not near Pentagon]: So it looked to
   be maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides, come in
   at a shallow ...

See this analysis of the breakdown of reports of sightings of a jetliner (over 30)
versus a commuter jet (2 -- both from far away). The second witness presented by
Loose Change may be Don Wright, who was in Rosslyn.

   And some saw a United States Military helicopter.
   ... when it occurred, he said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He
   said that it appeared to be a US Military helicopter, and that it disappeared
   behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is. And that he then
   saw a fireball go into the sky.

And what does the presence of a helicopter have to do with what kind of plane hit
the Pentagon?

   So who's telling the truth? Take this into consideration. April Gallop was
   working in the Pentagon's west side when it was hit. In Jim Marrs' book
   Inside Job, April claims...
   While in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once. They never
   identified themselves or what agency they worked for. They didn't tell her
   what to say, just made suggestions. For example, to take the compensation
   money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building.
   They repeated this over and over. But I was there, and I never saw a plane,
   or even debris from a plane. I figure this story is to brainwash people.

Jim Marrs' book contains additional details about Gallop's experience during the
attack. She was inside the Pentagon when the plane hit, which she thought was a
bomb. She describes being buried in rubble. Since April didn't see the crash, and
may have been injured, it is not surprising that she "never saw a plane": many
people who witnessed the crash were surprised not to see recognizable plane

   So if a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then what did?

In all probability, a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon. The available evidence is
consistent with such a crash.

   Eyewitnesses inside and outside the building were thrown to the ground by
   what they described as a shockwave.
   At that instant, a tremendous explosion ... shook the room. Mr. Murphy ... was
   knocked entirely across the room, while [a coworker] was jolted into his office.
   -Peter M. Murphy, on the fourth floor of the E-Ring, above the helipad

   "... the blast of the impact was so tremendous, that from his vantage point, it threw
   him backward over 100 feet slamming into a light pole causing him internal
   -Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda, 150 feet from the point of impact

   "Then, about 5 seconds later, the whole hotel shook. I could feel it moving."
   -Jeff Anlauf, on the 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel

   Even the Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 miles away was rocked by the blast. A number
   of military personnel at the Pentagon specifically mention smelling cordite.

   "Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had
   been set off somewhere."
   -Don Perkal, MSNBC

   "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke, she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or
   gun smoke."
   -Gilah Goldsmith, Teh Guardian

   Cordite and jet fuel have two very distinct smells. Cordite is a compound
   used in ammunition, which is comprised of nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose,
   and nitroglycerin. It is cool-burning, produces little smoke and no flash, but
   produces a strong detonation wave. And, eyewitnesses described a bright
   silvery flash.
   "There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose
   over the building."
   -James S. Robbins, National Security Analyst & NRO Contributor

   Jet fuel combustion, i.e. the planes that struck the Twin Towers, is bright
   yellow at best. Watch this.
   [Footage of the Boeing 720 crash on a runway]
   A massive smoldering fireball, no silvery flash, no shockwave. And at the
   Pentagon, a tiny bright silvery flash, which shakes nearby buildings.

The reports of a concussion, smell of cordite, and silvery flash suggest a blast may
have involved more than just the deflagration of jet fuel. However, if, explosives
were involved, for example, it is in no way inconsistent with the crash of Flight
77. There are any of a number of possibilities, including that the jetliner was hit
by an anti-aircraft weapon just as it collided with the facade.
Loose Change fails to credit Eric Bart,the French researcher who compiled the
extensive eyewitness collection mirrored here from which the above accounts
were apparently culled.

   Whatever it was, it might have been related to the two planes that were in
   the air after the crash. The first one was uniformly identified as a C-130.
   "Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from
   the Pentagon."
   -John O'Keefe

   "The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to
   be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft."
   -Anonymous, from the Naval Annex

   The second plane was an unmarked white plane flying over Washington DC.
   [CNN footage voiceover]: Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park directly
   across from the White House, perhaps about 200 yards from the White
   House residence itself about 10 minutes ago there was a white jet circling
   overhead. Now you generally don't see planes in the area over the White
   House, that is restricted airspace. No reason to believe that this jet was
   there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very
   concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we
   can tell.

It's possible that the either or both of the C-130 that tailed the jetliner, and the
four-engine jet high above (which may have been a KC-135), had something to do
with the attack. But this is pure speculation.

   At 9:25, Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, initiated a national ground stop,
   which prevents further takeoffs and requires all planes in the air to land. The
   order, which hasn't been implemented since 1903, applied to almost every
   single kind of a plane: civilian, military, or law enforcement. Certain military
   flights were allowed to fly during this time, but the FAA isn't talking. Why
   were these two planes allowed in the air when everyone else had to land?

It's doubtful that there was a ground stop in 1903, before aviation existed. The
9:25 "ground stop" prevented planes from taking off. The order for all planes to
land came at 9:45, seven minutes after the Pentagon attack, as indicated by this

   And finally, why did people keep reporting a second explosion at the
   [FOX NEWS footage voiceover]: Well, I can't tell you about that, but I was
   just here in front of the capital, which by the way has been evacuated, and
   back toward the Supreme Court area we just heard a low muffled thud. It
   sounded like a small explosion.
         [FOX NEWS footage voiceover]: There have been unconfirmed
         reports of second explosions here at the Pentagon, we have not
         confirmed that, but again ...
   Where did this fireball come from?

Secondary explosions aren't uncommon in building fires.

   Seventh, surveillance from a gas station, the
   Sheraton Hotel, and the Virginia Department
   of Transportation captured the entire thing.
   However the FBI was there within minutes to
   confiscate the tapes, including a warning to
   the employees not to discuss what they had
   seen. If the government wants to prove once
   and for all that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon all
   they would have to do is release one of those tapes.

Maybe there are people in the government who don't want to prove that Flight 77
hit the Pentagon. The no-jetliner hoax has served very effectively to hobble the
'9/11 truth movement' for four years now.

Video of the crash was reportedly played for the jury in the Moussaoui trial.

   Instead, they released 5 frames from a camera across the heliport, even
   though none of them show a 757.

These frames may have have been selected and edited to hide the 757, or may not
show the plane because it passed between consecutive frames. The frames were
leaked by an unknown source, and helped to feed the no-Boeing theory, possibly
the goal of whoever leaked them.

The May 16, 2006 release of footage from two cameras, neither of which shows a
Boeing 757, may be calculated to keep the no-plane theory going.

   And finally, why do satellite photos taken four
   days before 9/11 show a white marking on the
   front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory
   of whatever hit the Pentagon four days later?

The path is separated from the attack trajectory by at least 10
degrees, and appears to be related to underground services.

   "The area ... had blast-resistant windows, 2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each,
   that stayed intact during the crash and fire."
   -Los Angeles Times (09/16/01)

   And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section
   that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack, and the
   Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office on the opposite end of the building?
A good question indeed, based on an undisputed fact: the location of the attack.
Unfortunately the viewer might miss this point since it follows on the heels of a
red herring -- the path in the lawn.

    If the government has nothing to hide, why are they so afraid to answer a
    few questions, or release a few videos?

Are government insiders afraid to release evidence that would put an end to
questions about the Pentagon attack, or are they having fun keeping the Pentagon
no-plane hoax going?

      Continue to VOLUME 3: THE WORLD TRADE

                      Sifting Through
                       Loose Change
               The 9-11Research Companion to
          A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
                 using an illustrated transcript
                           VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
                         VOLUME 2: THE PENTAGON

                        VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93
                           VOLUME 5: ODDITIES
               covering the portion of the film from 00:30:42 to 00:55:43

                    Which points                          have value?

                                 Which               don't?
                        Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
                        and Your Critical Thinking Skills

    "On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the
     Empire State Building."
    "So what brought down the World Trade Center? Let's ask the experts."
    "So, what happened in the North Tower? Ask Willie Rodriguez"
    "For more than a year, the Port Authority blocked the release of a tape of firefighters'
    "On August 12th, 2005 ... transcripts of interviews with firefighters was finally released
     to the public."
    "What does science have to say about the collapses?"
     "In all the videos of the collapses explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20
      to 30 stories below the demolition wave."
     "You're probably asking, if there were bombs in the building, how would they get in
      there without anyone noticing?"

                                    Hide Replies                Show Replies

   "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over
   the place and someone was sitting at a control panel punching detonator buttons. There was another
   And another.
   I didn't know where to run."
   -Teresa Veliz, working on the 47th floor of the North Tower when Flight 11 hit.

It's possible that Veliz heard bombs in the Tower triggered by the plane crash. It's also
possible that she heard secondary explosions, such as from pockets of fuel vapor igniting.

   9:59. New York City, New York. The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses to the
   ground in approximately 10 seconds. 29 minutes later the North Tower follows suit, collapsing
   in approximately 10 seconds.

The destruction of each of the Twin Towers was rapid and systematic, but these events
lasted significantly longer than 10 seconds. The destruction of the North Tower took
approximately 17 seconds from start to finish, as shown by this frame analysis of the
CNN broadcast video. At ten seconds into its destruction (pictured to the right) the North
Tower was still more than 700 feet tall.

The use of the word "collapse" to describe what happened to the Twin Towers is not
accurate, since, in reality, the Towers exploded -- catapulting debris as much as 400 feet
in all directions.

   Later that evening at 5:20, World Trace Center 7, a 47 story office building 300 feet away from
   the North Tower, suddenly collapses. The building's tenants included the CIA, Department of
   Defense, IRS, Secret Service, and Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker. And the S.E.C. was
   using it to store 3 to 4 thousand files related to numerous Wall Street investigations. Although
   every single building surrounding Building 7 stood intact, it fell straight down, into a convenient
   little pile, in 6 seconds.

Loose Change passes quickly over the collapse of Building 7, noting the swiftness of the
collapse, but failing to note that it showed all of the features of a controlled demolition.

   Official explanation? Falling debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire, which ignited
   several fuel tanks inside the building.

As we still await NIST's final report on Building 7, FEMA's report did suggest that the
fuel tanks themselves were ignited, but that fuel pumped from the tanks burned.

   If this is true, then it would be the third building in history to collapse because of a fire. The first
   two would be the Twin Towers.
No, it would be the umteen-thousandth time in history. It would be the first time in
history that steel-framed high-rise buildings totally collapsed with fire blamed as the
primary cause. This is one of several examples of Loose Change ruining a good point
with a sloppy overstatement.

   On July 28th, 1945, a B-52 [B-25] bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the
   Empire State Building. 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands
   intact to this day.

This incident isn't even remotely comparable of the crashes of the 767s into the Twin
Towers. A 767 is about eight times the weight of a B-25, and has about fifty times the
fuel capacity. The 767s crashed into the Towers at about three times the speed of the B-
25. The construction of the Empire State Building and the Twin Towers is completely

It's surprising that the creators of Loose Change, having served in the military, made the
mistake of substituting 'B-52' -- the 8-engine jet that was the backbone of the USAF's
strategic bomber force for 50 years -- for 'B-25' -- the World-War-II-era 2-engine
propeller plane.

   On February 14th, 1975, a three alarm fire broke out between the 9th and 14th floors in the
   North Tower. According to the New York Times, the fire leads to intense scrutiny of the towers,
   and eventually to a decision to install sprinklers.

The 1975 fire in the North Tower was not nearly as severe as the 2001 fire.
   On May 4th, 1988, a 62 story skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4
   floors. It did not collapse. On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 story skyscraper in Philadelphia, built
   in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse. On
   October 17th, 2004, a 56 story skyscraper in Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17
   hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. Guess what? It did not collapse.

In contrast to the 2001 fires in the WTC Towers, the Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and
Caracas fires were all more severe and long-lasting. Apparently none of these buildings
suffered serious structural damage from the fires, and all were rehabilitated.

   On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 story tower framed in steel
   reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of
   the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse.

The Windsor Building fire is of limited comparative value to WTC 1, 2, and 7 fires,
because of its different construction. Whereas the WTC buildings were framed entirely in
steel, the Windsor Building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete.

   And yet on September 11th, 2001, two 110 story skyscrapers, completed in 1973, burned for
   56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Before collapsing completely to the
   ground. One might argue, that this was due to the construction of the World Trade Center. Let's
   look at what was inside those buildings.

   The Twin Towers were composed of 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete,
   103 elevators, 43,600 windows, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and a 360-foot television
   antenna. The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet, comprised of 47 box columns 36 by 16
   inches thick. The North Tower was completed in 1970 standing at 1368 feet tall and the South
   Tower was completed in 1973 clocking in at 1362 feet tall, making them the tallest buildings in
   the world until the Sears Tower was completed in 1974.
   [pan up the Empire State Building]
   And to think, the government would have us believe that these massive structures were
   destroyed by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. However, eyewitnesses, video footage, and a little
   common sense quickly refutes that claim.

This is a fairly accurate description of the Twin Towers contains some errors,
suggesting that the core box columns were solid, and failing to note that some had
cross-sections larger than 36 by 16 inches: 54 by 22 inches.

By stating that the government blames the destruction on 10,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Loose Change misrepresents their explanation. Both the FEMA and NIST Reports:

      Blame office contents, not the jet fuel, for sustaining the fires. The jet fuel's role
       was primarily one of ignition.
      Blame the gravitational potential energy of the tops of the Towers, not the fires,
       for obliterating the Towers. The fires supposedly precipitated the 'collapses.'

Loose Change's description is more fitting of a theory once endorsed by the page Collapse of the World Trade Center:
Thus it could be said that the towers burned down, essentially, or were destroyed by fire,
and that any steel of any building would have degraded in the same way.

   The second plane hits the South Tower between the 78th and 82nd floors at 9:03 AM, barely
   hitting the southeast corner, the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside in a massive fireball.
   Yet, this Tower collapses first, even though the North Tower was hit straight on, and had
   already been burning for 18 minutes longer.

Although Loose Change exaggerates the fact of Flight 175's off-centered impact as
"barely hitting" the building, the trajectory of the plane through the building does show
that it mostly missed the South Tower's structural core, in contrast to Flight 11's centered
impact with the North Tower.
   Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies calculates the time in which an object will travel a certain
   distance in complete freefall. Distance, D, equals 16.08 times Time in seconds squared.

   The South Tower was 1362 feet tall. 1362 equals 16.08 times 84.7. Or, 9.2 seconds.
   [footage of South Tower's destruction with timer overlay]
   The Twin Towers came down in nearly freefall speed.

The figure of 9.2 seconds is correct for the gravitational free-fall time for the height of the
Towers' roofs. However Loose Change just gave us a blatantly erroneous figure for the
total collapse times of the Towers: 10 seconds. This sloppiness obscures the existence of
truly compelling arguments that the Towers' rates of fall indicate demolition.

   200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.

Loose Change ruins a good point -- that the Towers were thoroughly shredded -- by
making an extreme exaggeration. Aerial photographs of Ground Zero show that many
pieces were about 50 feet long.

   425,000 cubic yards of concrete is pulverized into dust.

This is demonstrated by examining the many available photographs of Ground Zero. One
will be hard-pressed to find any evidence of chunks of non-metallic materials except in
photographs showing the site extensively excavated. Thus it appears that the 4-inch-thick
concrete above the street level were thoroughly pulverized into fine dust.
   Thousands of lives are extinguished instantly.

We will never know exactly how many people were killed rapidly in the progressive
explosion of each Tower, but the number could be well more than half of the 2,749
officially listed as dead. Many people -- perhaps more than 1000, were trapped above the
crash zone in the North Tower and historians think that most of them were dead by the
time of the "collapse." The number of jumpers is evidence that all of these victims who
survived the plane crashes faced horrible deaths by smoke inhalation, and as many as 200
chose to jump to their deaths.

It is striking that more than 1000 of the victims were never identified even after two years
of painstaking DNA analysis of small remains.

   So what brought down the World Trade Center? Let's ask the experts. Van Romero, Vice
   President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
   My opinion is, based on the videotapes, after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center, there
   were some explosive devices inside that caused the towers to collapse. The collapses were
   too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures.
   Ten days later:
   Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail.
   Why would Romero change his mind so suddenly?

Reading news stories about New Mexico Tech since 2001 shows that there were ample
motives for Romero's change of heart.

   Hyman Brown. Civil Engineering Professor and the World Trade Center's construction
   It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds,
   bombings and an airplane hitting it ... although the buildings were designed to withstand a
   150-year storm and the impact of a Boeing 707, jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees
   Fahrenheit weakened the steel.

Loose Change fails to correct a common misconception that Boeing 767s are "jumbo jets"
-- far larger than Boeing 707s. In fact the two aircraft are roughly the same size.

   Kevin Ryan. Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that was used in
   the World Trade Center, In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and
   We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature
   curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for
   several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.

   Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching
   red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the
   high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

   This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can
   all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning
   fires in those towers.
   Ryan's statements directly contradict statements from so-called "experts", which claim that
   2000 degree heat inside the WTC caused the towers to collapse. Days after writing this letter,
   Kevin Ryan was fired from his position.

Loose Change includes the passage from Kevin Ryan's letter in which he mentions the
theory that fire melted the steel. Debunkers have taken this out of context to suggest that
Kevin Ryan was attacking a straw man argument: that the official story required the fires
to melt steel. However, Ryan was merely addressing comments of Hyman Brown that
"steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 liters) of aviation fluid melted the steel". Also, it
is clear from the following excerpt of the same letter that Ryan was directly addressing
the NIST study, not merely some early comments from Hyman Brown:
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and
support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which
you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The
evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you
noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments
suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C),
which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it
suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to
"soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns
softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no
temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally
temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests
that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of
minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

   Not even the experts agree with each other. So what else could have caused the Twin Towers
   and Building 7 to collapse?
   [Peter Jennings]: 10 o'clock Eastern time this morning just collapsing on itself.

   [Reporter]: The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed.

   [Peter Jennings]: We have no idea what caused this.
   [CNN anchor]: Almost looks like one of those planned implosions.

   [Chanell 8 Voiceover]: As if a demolition team set off, when you see the whole demolitions of
   whole buildings. It folded down on itself and it was not there anymore.

   [Peter Jennings]: If you wish to bring anybody who's ever watched a building being demolished
   on purpose knows, that if you're going to do this, you have to get at the under infrastructure of
   a building and bring it down.

   [Female witness]: We heard another explosion and I'm assuming that's the one that came from
   the lower level. Since there were two...
   They were 18 minutes apart.
   Well... this is, no the first, the first explosion and there was the second explosion in the same
   building. There were 2 explosions.

   [WCBS 2 Voiceover]: Federal Agencies that were down there do believe that there was some
   sort of explosive device, somewhere else besides the planes hitting.

In this more complete transcript of Peter Jennings' comments, we see his co-anchor, Don
Dahler, jumping in to correct him.

         NBC's Pat Dawson is close to the scene of that attack, Pat?

         [Pat Dawson]: Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City
         Fire Department, the chief Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of a secondary
         device, that is another bomb going off, he tried to get his men out as quickly as he could,
         but he said that there was another explosion which took place and then, an hour after
         the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that
         took place in one of the Towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that
         were planted in the building, The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably
         planted in the building.

         [Unnamed reporter]: There were two or three similar huge explosions and the building
         literally shook, it literally shook at the base of this building.
[NBC reporter]: First one and then the other, some say after secondary explosions.
[Male witness]: A big explosion happened, all of a sudden the elevator blew up, smoke, I
dragged the guy out, his skin was hanging off, and I dragged him out and I helped him to
the ambulance.

[Male witness]: We started coming down the stairs from the eighth floor. Big Explosion.
Blew us back into the eighth floor.

[Male witness]: Just came out of the tunnel, and it blew.
The subway tunnel?

[Reporter]: So, tell us what's happening out there.
We just witnessed some kind of secondary, follow up explosion on the World Trade
Center number 2.

We understand now there has been a secondary explosion on Tower 2.

[Harold Dow]: There was another major explosion. The building itself, literally the top of it
came down sending smoke and debris everywhere.

[FOX News reporter]: We are five blocks from the World Trade Center. And, and we
were standing here, when, when there was some sort of collapse, or explosion.
Do you know if it was an explosion, or if it was a building collapse?
[Police officer]: To me it sounded like, to me it sounded like an explosion...

[Male witness]: at the moment we heard a big explosion coming down. Everything it went
black. Everything came down, glass started popping, people got hurt, stuff went on top of
them, and there was a big explosion, and everything got dark. Real dark like smoke.

[FOX News reporter]: The FBI is here as you can see, they had roped this area off, they
were taking photographs and securing this area, just prior to that huge explosion that we
all heard and felt.

[Female police officer]: Get out of the area. The second Tower is coming down.
Did they tell you the second Tower is coming down?
Yes, it's about to collapse.
         [Female reporter]: At 10:30 I tried to leave the building. As soon as I got outside I heard
         a second explosion. And another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside
         the building, the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another 5
         minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a Fire Marshall
         came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building
         might not last.

         [FOX NEWS reporter]: We just saw that as well, the second Tower, the only one that
         was standing, Tower number one just ah we saw some kind of explosion a lot of smoke
         come out of the top of the Tower, and then it collapsed down onto the streets below.

         [Reporter]: David Lee, what can you tell us?
         John, just seconds ago there was a huge explosion and it appears right now the second
         World Trade Tower has just collapsed.
   One eyewitness was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, two and a half
   blocks from the South Tower, when he saw a number of brief light sources being emitted from
   inside the building between floors 10 and 15. He saw about six of these flashes, accompanied
   by a crackling sound before the Tower collapsed.
   Ginny Carr was attending a business meeting on the 36th floor of One Liberty Plaza, across
   the street from the World Trade Center, and caught the entire first attack on tape. A second
   explosion can be heard nine seconds after the crash.
   [Soundwave display]
   ...sounded like some crash..

This hodge-podge of accounts may contain some valuable evidence pertaining to
demolition, but most of the accounts are easily explained as simply perceptions related
either to the plane crashes or the 'collapses.'

   So, what happened in the North Tower? Ask Willie Rodriguez. Willie, a janitor who worked in
   the World Trade Center for 20 years, was in sub-level 1 when the North Tower was hit.
   And all of a sudden we heard boom!! And I thought it was a generator that blew up in the
   basement. And I said to myself: Oh my God, I think that's the generator. And I was going to
   verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind, I hear boom! Right on the top. Pretty
   far away. So, it was a difference between coming from the basement and coming from the top.
   And thats ... everybody started screaming. And a person comes running into the office saying:
   Explosion, explosion, explosion! He had his hands extended. And all the skin was falling from
   under his arm. All the way to the top of the fingertips, and it was hanging from both arms.
   Hanging and hanging. And then I looked at his face and he was missing parts of his face. And I
   said: What happened? What happened? And he said: The elevators, the elevators. And then...
   When I..., there were many explosions, and when I actually talked about those explosions, they
   said that: Well, there were so many kitchens in the building. They have probably those gas
   canisters. And I say: I don't believe that, because the building was a class A building. They
   have very strict guidelines of what you can put in a kitchen. And I really doubt it was gas. So,
   there was a lot of misconceptions of what happened on that day in terms of the explosions. Up
   to today, I haven't received an actual explanation about the different explosions that I heard on
   the upper floors. And on the way to the top.

The Rodriguez account is easily dismissed by noting that there are many possible sources
of explosions low in the building that could be triggered by the plane crash far above,
such as electrical short-circuits, and explosions of vaporized fuel that had descended the
elevator shafts (see next reply).

   The windows in the lobby of the North Tower were blown out, and marble panels were blown
   off of the walls. This was brushed off as damage from a raging fireball that went barreling down
   the elevator shafts. However, the World Trade Center's core and elevator shafts were
   hermetically sealed, AKA, air-tight. The fire could not possibly have had enough oxygen to
   travel 1,300 feet down, retaining enough energy to destroy the bottom 8 floors of the building.

The explanation that a fireball caused the damage in the North Tower is in the 9/11
Commission Report:
A battalion chief and two ladder and two engine companies arrived at the North Tower at
approximately 8:52.As they entered the lobby, they encountered badly burned civilians
who had been caught in the path of the fireball. Floor-to-ceiling windows in the northwest
corner of the West Street level of the lobby had been blown out; some large marble tiles
had been dislodged from the walls; one entire elevator bank was destroyed by the fireball.
Loose Change drastically exaggerates the damage as "destroy[ing] the bottom 8 floors of
the building," and dismisses the explanation that the fireball was due to the plane crashes
by saying the elevator shafts were "hermetically sealed" -- an apparent reference to fire
suppression dampers -- and that fire from the plane crash could not have descended from
the crash zone. However, fire would not have had to descend to produce a huge fireball in
the lobby. Given the quantities of jet fuel involved (10,000 gallons) it is reasonable to
expect that large quantities of it, even if vaporized, would not be instantly ignited by the
crash because it would be above the mixture's upper explosive limit (ie: too rich to burn).
Thus fuel could have spilled down elevator shafts, and ignited only once it had mixed
with enough air and encountered a source of ignition at ground level.

   On 9-11, New York City lost 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center. Since they were the
   ones inside the Towers before and as they collapsed, I'd say they've got a pretty good grasp
   on what happened. So, what does the FDNY think? First, we have this interview from the
   Naudet brothers' documentary.
   ... What do we do? We made it outside, we made it about a block? We made it at least 2
   blocks and we started running ... Boom-boom-boom-boom. Floor by floor it started popping out.
   It was like, as if they had detonated ... Yeah, detonated. Take out the building. Boom-boom-
   boom-boom. ... all the way down, I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this
   cloud of s___ chasing you down. Couldn't outrun it.

This excerpt from the Naudet film has been available here since late 2003.

   In these interviews, numerous members of Engine 7 describe explosions preceding the
   collapses, not to mention the damage to the lobby of the North Tower.
   I heard a loud boom. And my first ... I was, I was right at the desk there on the lefthand side
   when you come into Tower one. And I walked out, you know I didn't go out I walked to where
   all the doorway, where the glass was broken, and I looked out and I seen in the building across
   the street. I seen the shadow coming like the, I seen the shadow on a building across the street
   coming down.

   I wasn't expecting to see the damage that I saw in the lobby. And, and the people, the bodies,
   the burnt people, the injured people, I really wasn't prepared for that.

   The lobby was about six stories high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded
   there. It's a ... all the glass was taken out, there were 10 foot by 10 foot, a marble panels that
   were once walls that were loose from the wall of the Trade Center.

   I went around by the freight elevator and I could see it was just blown.
   30th floor. We hear another ... explosion. And at that time we heard a huge explosion.

As noted above, the explanation that unignited jet fuel fell down elevator shafts and then
ignited in the lobby is entirely plausible. Igniting a fuel-air mixture that is between the
lower and upper explosive limits can produce large overpressures and great destruction.
Indeed, bombs known as thermobaric devices exploit that fact, so comments by
firefighters noting the appearance of bomb damage are not surprising.

   Firefighter Louie Cacchioli told People Weekly:
   I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate
   workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the
For more than a year, the Port Authority blocked the release of a tape of firefighters'
transmissions from the World Trade Center on 9-11. In November 2002, the tape was finally
released to the New York Times and other news outlets. Why did it take so long to get the tape
I got, uh, an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8.

Battalion 3 to Dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

... Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion. We've got numerous people covered
with dust from the secondary explosion.

We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13.

Tower 2 has had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding
the entire area.

I was involved in the secondary, uh, explosion at Tower 1, Kay...
Chief Palmer had reached the fire on the 78th floor of the South Tower and devised a plan
to put it out. 9:52 a.m., 13 minutes before collapse.
... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down
with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.
If the 78th floor was a raging inferno like the government would have us believe, then
Palmer wouldn't have gotten as far as he did and certainly wouldn't be able to put it out.
Chief Palmer was in the 78th floor 'skylobby' at the bottom of
the crash zone, which extended from the 78th to the 84th
floors. Palmer's account of "two pockets of fire" presumably
only describes conditions on the 78th floor. Were there larger
fires on the floors above? Photographs of the South Tower
shortly before its explosion suggest there were not. Whereas
broadcast video taken within the first 20 minutes of the crash
show flames lapping from the northeast corner of the Tower,
there are apparently no photographs or videos of the Tower
shortly before 9:59 that show any visible fires.

   On August 12th, 2005 an additional 15 hours of radio transmissions and transcripts of
   interviews with firefighters was finally released to the public. Firefighters describe two events
   consistent with the controlled demolition: bright flashes from inside the building ...
   "I saw low-level flashes. [Lieutenant Evangelista] asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the
   building, and I agreed with him because I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building
   came down."
   "You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down?
   That's what I thought I saw."
   --Stephen Gregory, Commissioner of the Bureau of Communications

   [footage of controlled demolitions]
   And a number of crackling sounds before the buildings collapsed ...
   "Somewhere around the middle of the WTC there was this orange and red flash ... initially it was just
   one then [it] just kept popping all the way around the building and [it] started to explode."
   "As far as I could see, these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up
   and down and then all around the building."
   --Captain Karin deShore, Batallion 46

   [footage of the Kingdome demolition]

Loose Change gives short shrift to one of the most valuable bodies of evidence to emerge
in regard to the destruction of the Towers. This body of 'oral histories', consisting of more
than 12,000 pages of interviews with FDNY and EMS personnel, contains detailed
accounts of the sights and sounds of explosions at the onsets of each of the Tower's
'collapse.' The accounts describe more than just bright flashes and crackling sounds.
David Ray Griffin describes the following features described by these witnesses.

      Explosions
      Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire
      Flashes and Demolition Rings
      Horizontal Ejections
      Synchronized Explosions

   What does science have to say about the collapses? The collapse of the World Trade
   Center was picked up by Columbia University's observatory in Palisades, New York. The
   South Tower registers at 2.1 earthquake. The North Tower registers at 2.3 earthquake.
   Won-Young Kim told Chris Bollyn that their seismographs pick up underground explosions
   from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium
   nitrate and cause local earthquakes between magnitude one and two. The 1993 bombing
   of the World Trade Center did not even register, because it was not coupled to the ground.
   During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the Towers
   and the neighboring structures converting them into rubble and dust or causing other
   damage but not causing significant ground shaking.

Science could have a great deal to say about the 'collapses' but you wouldn't know that
from Loose Change, which, instead of providing any scientific analysis, trots out the
long-ago-debunked claim by Christopher Bollyn that the seismic records of the events
prove underground explosions. The claim is based on an easily demonstrated
misinterpretation of the graphs from the Lamont-Doherty station in Palisades, NY.
   Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. told the American Free Press
   that in the basements of the WTC where 47 central support columns connected to the
   bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after
   September 11th. These incredibly hot areas were found at the bottoms of the elevator
   shafts down 7 basement levels. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks
   later, when the rubble was being removed." He said that molten steel was also found at
   World Trade Center 7. The highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower,
   where a temperature of 1377 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded. The molten steel in the
   basement was more than double that temperature. Do you still think that jet fuel brought
   down the World Trade Center?

Loose Change cites only the American Free Press article, which quotes presidents of two
of the companies involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero, as a source for the story that
there was molten steel in the rubble. This makes it easy to dismiss the story as the product
of a publication with neo-Nazi ties using as sources participants in the arguably criminal
destruction of evidence. One has to look elsewhere to find more credible reports of
molten steel.

   In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20 to 30
   stories below the demolition wave. Here.
   Here. Here. Here. Here. And here.
Loose Change provides some excellent footage of the so-called squibs (high-velocity
dust ejections) emerging from the Towers' facades below the descending zones of total
destruction, but does not provide any analysis of why these indicate demolition, or
attempt to answer arguments that the ejections were merely due to floors falling inside
the Towers. However, straightforward analysis shows that these events could not have
been the results of gravity collapses.

   Etienne Sauret was filming her documentary, World Trade Center: The First 24 Hours, and
   caught both collapses on tape. Watch carefully. The tripod shakes 12 seconds before the
   North Tower begins collapsing. And something is knocked off the right hand side of the

Perhaps the camera shook when someone walked by. And there were lots of objects,
including people, falling from the North Tower because of the fires. In any case, seismic
records rule out the possibility that there were significant seismic events preceding each
Tower's explosion.
   You're probably asking, if there were bombs in the building, how would they get in there without
   anyone noticing? Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center, told
   People Magazine that in the weeks before 9-11, There were a number of unannounced and
   unusual drills where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7 were evacuated for
   'security reasons'. Daria Coard, a guard in the North Tower, told Newsday that security detail
   was working 12 hour shifts for two weeks before 9-11, but on Thursday the 6th, bomb sniffing
   dogs were abruptly removed from the building.

The Ben Fountain story is notable for its lack of corroboration. The story about the
pulling of bomb-sniffing dogs is interesting, but does not provide a satisfying answer to
how the buildings could have been rigged for demolition. Such questions can only be
answered with speculation, but there are plausible scenarios that describe how the
buildings could have been prepared without detection.

   So who authorized all this? President Bush's brother, Marvin, was Board of Directors at
   Securacom from 1993 until fiscal year 2000. Securacom, now known as Stratesec, is an
   electronic security company backed by Kuwait-American Corporation, which provided security
   for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport, and from the early 1990s up to the day of 9-11,
   the World Trade Center. Marvin is also the former director of HCC Insurance Holdings which
   insured parts of the World Trade Center on 9/11. More information on this was supposed to be
   disclosed and never was. To date the SEC has not revealed what they have learned.

Loose Change displays this page to document the point about Bush and Securacom. The
story by Margie Burns cited here may have predated that.

   If only we could examine the debris from the World Trade Center and figure out what
   happened. Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani began shipping the remains off to recycling yards
   overseas before investigators could even examine it.
Although it took until May of 2002 for the cleanup of Ground Zero to be completed,
much of the steel had been removed before FEMA's volunteer team of investigators had
started its work. The plan to recycle the steel, submitted by Controlled Demolition Inc.,
was accepted by the city just 11 days after the attack, and the destruction of the steel
proceeded over the objections of victims' families and fire safety experts.

   Not even FEMA was allowed into Ground Zero. Essentially, they blocked off a crime scene and
   destroyed all the evidence.

More accurately, the team assembled by FEMA to study the 'collapses' -- the Building
Performance Assessment Team -- lacked the authority and resources normally given to
investigators, such as access to the crime scene, subpoena power, and adequate funding.

   Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for
   cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It gets better than that. On July
   15th, 2001. Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400-foot-tall fuel reserve tanks from the
   World War II era. The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew
   numerous complains from the neighborhood. The site remains vacant to this day and a
   reason for the demolition has never been disclosed.
 The demolition of the tanks was contracted by their owner Keyspan Energy. By
 suggesting that the demolition of the tanks was suspicious Loose Change glosses over a
 fact that is suspicious: CDI's burying the evidence of the bombing of the Murrah

    Regardless, I think what happened to the World Trade Center is simple enough. It was brought
    down in a carefully planned controlled demolition. It was a psychological attack on the
    American People, and it was pulled off with military precision.

                   Continue to VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93

                                 Sifting Through
                                  Loose Change
                          The 9-11Research Companion to
                          LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
                      A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
                             using an illustrated transcript
                     VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
                  VOLUME 2: THE PENTAGON

            VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93
                            VOLUME 5: ODDITIES
              covering the portion of the film from 00:55:43 to 01:01:36

                   Which points                      have value?

                               Which            don't?
                      Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
                      and Your Critical Thinking Skills

    "10:06 AM. Shanksville, Pennsylvania."
    "However, evidence suggests that perhaps Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville."
    "And as for the passengers..."
    "You ready for this? Cleveland."
    "Mayor White reported that the plane had 200 passengers"
                                    Hide Replies                Show Replies

   "[Mayor] White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of [Hopkins] Airport, and was
   evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93."
   -WCPO-TV, Cincinnati, 9/11/01, 11:43:57

   10:06 AM. Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Flight 93 was en route from New Jersey to California
   with 45 passengers, when it went off course at 8:56 over Cleveland, Ohio. According to the
   official story, Flight 93 was headed for the White House, when it was overpowered by a group
   of passengers and crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Out of all the events of 9-11, the one
   that has caused the most confusion is Flight 93. It was shot down, it wasn't shot down.

There are several pieces of evidence indicating
that it was shot down, including:

      Debris fields up to 8 miles from the
       primary crash site
      Strange sounds from the jetliner before it
      An apparent attempt to cover up details of
       the crash by changing the official time of
       the crash from 10:06 to 10:03.

   However, evidence suggests that perhaps Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville.
   [FOX News reporter]: I wanna get quickly to Chris Chaniki he's a photographer with the
   Pittsburgh affiliate a Fox affiliate. He was back there just a couple minutes ago and Chris, I've
   seen the pictures, it looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.
   Basically that's right, the only thing you can see from; where we were was a big gouge in the
   earth, and some broken trees. You could see some people working, walking around in the
   area, but from where we can see there wasn't much left.
   Any large pieces of debris at all?
   No, there was nothing. Nothing, that you can distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
   Smoke, fire?
   Nothing, it was absolutely quiet, it was actually very quiet. Nothing going on down there, no
   smoke, no fire, just a couple of people walking around. They look like part of the NTSB crew.
   Walking around, looking at the pieces.
   How big would you say that hole was?
   Ah, from my estimates, I would guess it was probably around 20 to 15 feet, ah long, and
   probably about 10 feet wide.
   What could you see on the ground, if anything, other than dirt and ash and ... ?
   You couldn't see anything. You just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees.
   Wally Miller, a Somerset County coroner, told the Houston Chronicle:
   It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky.
   In the Washington Post ...
   It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it.

As with the Pentagon crash, Loose Change falls for the no-plane hoax, hook, line, and
sinker. The first edition of the video endorsed the conclusion that it was shot down. But
perhaps the idea that "[Flight 93] was nowhere near Shanksville" is more appealing to
the X-Files mindset.

Flight 93 crashed dose-down into the soft landfill of a reclaimed strip mine. (See this
analysis of the crash location.) It's therefore not surprising that the 757 would bury itself
in a crater.

Photographs of the crater show that it was more than 100 feet long and 30 feet wide, not
"20 feet long and 10 feet wide," as the cherry-picked account states.
Apart from all of the physical evidence of the crash, numerous eyewitnesses saw the
jetliner in its final moments.

   And as for the passengers...
   I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there.
   In the Pittsburgh Review...
   I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.
   It would seem that, on one day, for the second time in history, an entire plane, along with its
   passengers, disappeared upon impact.
   [Reporter]: ... No signs of any survivors at the site of the Nigerian plane crash that is the word
   from the Red Cross, which has a representative on site. The first pictures of the crash scene
   show a large crater where the Boeing 737 broke into the small pieces. The plane crashed
   shortly after taking off from Lagos in a heavy storm. The flight was going to the Nigerian capital
   of Abuja and was believed to be carrying some senior Nigerian officials.

According to a Washington Post story, about 1500 human remains were recovered from
Flight 93's crash site. The coroner only spent 20 minutes at the crash site, before the site
was excavated for bodies, so it's not surprising that he didn't see blood.
Loose Change runs aerial video of the Nigerian 737 crash site, next to distant aerial video
of the Flight 93 crash site, apparently to suggest that the lack of obvious plane pieces at
the Shanksville crash site means that a plane didn't crash there. (Identifiable pieces aren't
visible in the Nigerian crash photographs either, but maybe I'm missing something.)

   So if Flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville, then where?
   You ready for this? Cleveland. At 11:43 on September 11th, WCPO, a local TV station in
   Cincinnati, Ohio, reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to a bomb
   threat. United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93.

   Are you confused? Well, it gets better. Check it out.
   At approximately 10 AM, Cleveland Hopkins Airport was evacuated, amidst rumors that a
   hijacked plane was going to land. That was flight 1989. Passengers had to leave, but couldn't
   drive. They had to walk or hitchhike. Buses weren't allowed to leave. People were sent home.
   According to Associated Press and local Ohio papers, one plane landed at approximately
   10:45. But Delta Airlines confirmed that their plane, Delta 1989, landed in Cleveland at 10:10.
   Therefore, Flight 93 landed at Cleveland at approximately 10:45.

So the entire basis of the 'Cleveland theory' is a TV news story that ran at 11:43 AM on
9/11/01, amidst the confusion of the attack. AP picked up and posted the story before it
had been corrected.

Anyone who watches news coverage from 9/11/01 will see that reporting errors abound.
The report that Delta Flight 1989 was hijacked is just one example, and led to the
questioning of the passengers at the Cleveland airport. Here is an account by a passenger
on Flight 1989.

   Authorities searched Delta 1989 for over two hours, and passengers were questioned
   "Our plane was directed to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in
   quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane."
   -Anonymous, September 13th, 2001,

   The Plain Dealer reported that the plane was evacuated at 12:30. But the Akron Beacon
   reports that a plane was evacuated at 11:15. Which would make that Flight 93.

If you have trouble following the logic of this argument, you're not alone.

   Mayor White reported that the plane had 200 passengers. But a passenger from Delta 1989
   describes 60 or so passengers. So at 11:15, 200 or so passengers were released from Flight
   93. The passenger from Delta 1989 states that she was taken into FAA headquarters. But
   other reports say that passengers were brought into the NASA Glenn Research Center located
   near the west end of the airport, which had already been evacuated. So, to sum up. Delta 1989
   landed at 10:10, was evacuated at 12:30, almost two and a half hours later, and 69 passengers
   were taken to FAA Headquarters. Flight 93 landed at 10:45 and evacuated within a half hour,
   200 or so passengers quickly taken to an empty NASA Research Center. Why did it take 140
   minutes to evacuate 69 passengers, when 200 were evacuated in a half hour? We can assume
   that the passengers from Delta 1989 are safe somewhere.

More theorizing based on erroneous reports.

   The question remains, what happened to the 200 or so passengers from Flight 93? It's
   interesting to note that the combined total of all the passengers from all four flights is 198. Or
   243. Depending on who you ask.

Who did the Loose Change producers ask?
So rather than accepting the evidence that Flight 93 was downed in Shanksville --
witnesses to the crash, physical evidence of the crash, cell phone calls from the
 passengers, and identification of human remains -- Loose Change speculates that 200
 people were somehow herded onto Flight 93 (perhaps from Flights 11, 175, 77) and then
 mysteriously disappeared into a NASA research facility. Could it get any more

     We may never know what really happened to Flight 93.

 Indulging in science-fiction fantasies about disappearing planes may be fun, but for the
 victims, 9/11 was no game.

                           Continue to VOLUME 5: ODDITIES

                                  Sifting Through
                                   Loose Change
                          The 9-11Research Companion to
                          LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
                      A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
                             using an illustrated transcript
                                  VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
                                VOLUME 2: THE PENTAGON
                   VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93

                     VOLUME 5: ODDITIES
               covering the portion of the film from 01:01:36 to 01:19:35

                   Which points                        have value?

                                Which             don't?
                       Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
                       and Your Critical Thinking Skills

    "A commercial plane carries two different black boxes."
    "Next. What about the cell phone calls?"
    "But to be honest, none of that matters. Why? Because none of these calls could have
     taken place."
    "So how is it possible to fake a person's voice?"
    "So what about the hijackers?"
    "What justification do we have for bombing Afghanistan? Oh, that's right. The Bin
     Laden confession tape."
    "First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center in
     July, 2001."
    "Next we have the put options that were placed on United Airlines, American Airlines,
     and Boeing."
                                      Hide Replies                  Show Replies

   But we do know what didn't happen.

   "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every [attack]. I would like to
   assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people
   for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders'
   rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations,"
   -Osama bin Laden, from a statement issued to Al Jazeera within days of the 9-11 attacks

   Whenever this evidence is presented to people, you'll usually get one of many different
   The first one being, if different planes were used, what happened to the original ones?
   Unfortunately, we may never know what really happened. But if we could examine the black
   boxes from the planes that were used, we could prove that they weren't the original flights.

There are many aspects of the official story that can be disproved, such as the theory of
fire-induced collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Focusing on what we don't
know serves as a distraction.

   A commercial plane carries two different black boxes. Each black box carries one of two
   different recorders, a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder. The cockpit voice
   recorder records sounds from inside the cockpit, including engine noise, stall warnings, and
   other sounds of interest. Communications between Air Traffic Control, weather briefings and
   conversations between pilots and crew are also recorded. The flight data recorder records at
   least 28 different parameters, such as time, altitude, speed and heading. Some also record
   more than 300 other in-flight characteristics, anything from auto-pilot to smoke alarms. The
   recorders themselves are made from the most impervious metals known to man, and the
   information is recorded along with date and time, and spooled into a continuous roll. Any
   damage that is done to the roll is done to the outside, as opposed to the inside where the data

The black boxes are indeed designed to survive extreme conditions, such as virtually any
crash would produce, but to suggest they are indestructible is an exaggeration.

   The 9-11 Commission says "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not
   Yet, the FBI claims to have found the passport of Satam al-Suqami, which managed to fly out
   of his pocket, through the explosion and onto the streets of Manhattan below. So, four different
   black boxes, made from the most resilient materials known to man, were destroyed. Yet, a
   passport, made from a fragile material known as paper, managed to survive? Who writes this

This is somewhat misleading, because the Commission's claim that the black boxes from
Flights 11 and 175 were not found is not the same as claiming they were destroyed.

The alleged recovery of Satam al-Suqami's passport is particularly incredible given that
he supposedly piloted Flight 11, which crashed squarely into the North Tower, such that
only a piece of landing gear punched all the way through.

   Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, told CBS News
   that "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic
   case in which we did not recover the recorders."
   Turns out Ted's right. Nicholas Demasi, a firefighter who helped the recovery efforts claims in
   the book Behind the Scenes: Ground Zero,
   At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site. To search for the black
   boxes from the planes. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.

   I guess it all comes down to who you'd rather believe. FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight
   77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice
   recorder contained nothing useful. And Donald Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice
   recorder was unrecoverable.
   As for Flight 93, it was the only flight where the cockpit voice recorder was recovered. It was
   played for the families in April, 2002, but not before they signed an agreement saying that they
   wouldn't talk about it. They couldn't even take notes.

   And for some reason, the last three minutes of the tape was unaccounted for. The FBI had no
   explanation for the discrepancy. Why would the 9-11 Commission tell us Flight 11 and 175's
   recorders weren't found? Why would Robert Mueller tell us that there's nothing interesting on
   Flight 77s? What's on the last three minutes of Flight 93's cockpit voice recorder? These are
   vital questions that need to be answered.

Loose Change fails to note that the 9/11 Commission disposed of the issue of the missing
three minutes by setting the crash time of Flight 93 at 10:03 instead of 10:06. Since the
reasons for this are unconvincing it is evidence that Flight 93 was shot down.

   It's an interesting postscript that Flight 93 was spotted on April 10th, 2003 at Chicago's O'Hare
   by David Friedman, a United Airlines employee who records all of his flights. The tail number,
   N591UA was spotted on Flight 1111, a United Airlines 757. And according to the FAA, both
   N591UA and N612UA, Flights 93 and 175, are still valid. But Flights 11 and 77 are listed as
   destroyed. Not to mention that they were not even scheduled to fly on September 11th.

The tail number for Flight 1111 is listed at N594UA. Perhaps David Friedman made a
mistake. The fact that tail numbers of destroyed planes are still valid does not mean that
they are active -- corresponding to planes. The tail numbers N591UA and N612UA are
reserved for American Airlines, for possible future use.

Much has been made of the absence of Flights 11 and 77 from the BTS database by no-
plane theorist Gerard Holmgren, but perhaps the entries were removed because the flights
were destroyed.
   Next. What about the cell phone calls? For starters, the calls themselves are extremely
   peculiar. Most of them are only a couple sentences long, before the callers end the
   conversation, only to call back later.

We don't know how long most of the calls were, since, with the exception of the Betty
Ong call, they were not recorded. What Loose Change presents as transcripts of the Flight
93 calls were compiled from news reports that related what recipients of the calls
remember. Also, it's not surprising that many of the calls were short and repeated, since
callers may have been attempting to be discrete.

   Flight Attendant Betty Ong allegedly placed a call from Flight 11. According to the 9-11
   Commission, although the conversation lasted 23 minutes, only 4 and a half minutes was
   What is your name?
   Ok, my name is Betty Ong. I'm number 3 on Flight 11.
   And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there's somebody stabbed in business class.
   And there's... We can't breathe in business class. Somebody's got mace or something. Okay.
   Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who stabbed who, and we
   can't even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is
   stabbed right now. And who else is...
   Okay, and do we...
   and our number 5 ... our first class passengers are ... first class ... galley flight attendant and
   our purser has been stabbed. And we can't get into the cockpit, the door won't open.
   Does Ms. Ong sound like a woman on a hijacked plane who just saw three people murdered?
   Why is nobody in the background screaming?

The lack of screaming may have been due to the competent way in which the flight
attendants managed the emergency. According to a BBC News story passengers in coach
were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class.
Furthermore, we don't know if the stab victims were dead, and, according to her call, Ong
did not witness the attack.

   Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney allegedly talked with her ground manager Michael
   Woodward for 25 minutes. She describes 4 hijackers. The FBI says there were 5. She says the
   hijackers were in rows 9 and 10. The FAA says there were all in row 8. Near the end, she
   screams, "I see buildings. Water. Oh my God!" Madeline was a flight attendant out of Boston
   for twelve years. I think she would have recognized Manhattan.

Some discrepancies between the ad-hoc flight attendant reports and the FAA reports
would hardly be surprising. According to Woodward, Sweeney made the remark about
buildings and water "very slowly, very calmly, very quietly."

   A man claiming to be Mark Bingham called his mother, Alice, who was visiting his sister-in-law.
   The caller says, "Mom? This is Mark Bingham." When was the last time you called your mother
   and used your full name? "I just want to tell you that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to
   San Francisco and there are three guys on board and they have taken over the plane and they
   say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the Airphone," and then "You believe me, don't you,
   Mom?" "Yes Mark, I believe you, who are these guys?" Then he was interrupted by someone
   who was speaking in a low-toned male voice, speaking what sounded like English. After 30
   seconds of muffled sounds, the caller repeats "I'm calling you with an Airphone." His mother
   asks him again, "Who are these guys?" After another pause he returns and asks again, "You
   believe me, don't you, Mom?" There was another pause, and the phone just trailed off.

Alice is on record stating that she has no doubt that the caller was Mark. As for Mark
using his full name -- it's not hard to imagine someone doing that when they're under
extreme duress.

   To date, none of the calls, except for Betty Ong's call to American Airlines, has been released
   to the public.

It is not clear that any of the other calls were recorded.

   But to be honest, none of that matters.
   Why? Because none of these calls could have taken place.
   Kee Dewdney of conducted some research of his own. In an experiment
   called Project Achilles, he took a series of cell phones onto a Cessna 172 and flew up to
   8,000 feet to determine the success rate as the plane got higher. At 4,000 feet he had a .4
   success rate. At 8,000 feet he had a .1 success rate. For 32,000 feet, cruising altitude for a
   commercial airliner, he calculated a .006 success rate. Less than one in a hundredth of a

Dewdney's experiments do not support the conclusion that "none of the calls could have
taken place."

      Dewdney's experiment was conducted over London, Ontario -- not the flightpaths
       of the commandeered jetliners.
      Dewdney tested only Motorola phones. Certainly there are performance differences
       between different brands of phones and different service networks.
      Several of the calls were made on the GTE Airphones installed in the jetliners,
       rather than cellphones.
      Since the phone calls were made after the transponders were shut off, we don't
       know the altitude of the jetliners when the calls were made. Perhaps Flight 93 was
       flying below 8,000 feet.

   Don't believe me? Even American Airlines has put their foot in the government's mouth. On
   July 15th, 2004, passengers aboard a commercial American Airlines flight were able to send
   and receive calls from their cell phones as if they were on the ground, thanks to a cell station
   that was installed into the plane.
   It worked great. I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me
   great, and I could hear them loud and clear.
   Why would American Airlines spend thousands of dollars on this technology in 2004 When cell
   phones worked so well on September 11th, 2001?

Cell phones didn't work well on 9/11/01, but they worked well enough to transmit a
number of short calls. The new technology announced in 2004 just provided a more
reliable and cost-effective service.

   The cell phone calls were fake. No question about it.

By stating with certainty conclusions based on transparently flawed analysis, Loose
Change dilutes its few conclusions that are valid.

   So how is it possible to fake a person's voice? In 1999, the Los Alamos Laboratory in New
   Mexico revealed their voice morphing technology. General Carl W. Steiner, the former
   Commander-in-chief of U.S. Special Operations declared on tape:
   Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the
   United States government.
   Another example was Colin Powell saying, "I am being treated well by my captors." With just a
   10-minute recording of somebody's voice, they are able, in almost real time, to clone
   someone's speech. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy.

These examples, which merely consist of creating static messages, are not at all
comparable to the phone conversations from Flight 93, which were real-time two-way

   So what about the hijackers? On September 14th, 2001, the Department of Justice released
   the names of the alleged 19 hijackers. But on September 23rd, the BBC reported that Waleed
   Al Shehri was alive and well in Casablanca, Morocco.
   [Waleed] ... attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States ... he left the
   United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines

   They also tracked down Abdulaziz Alomari, who is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and lost
his passport while studying in Denver.
"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth,
but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to
do with this."
-The Telegraph, 9/23/2001

In the same article, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that "the identity of several of the
hijackers is in doubt."

So how many hijackers turned up alive? At least nine of them. Wail M. Alshehri is alive and
[Wail M. Al-Sheri] is a pilot whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. "I personally talked to
both father and son today."
-Gaafar Allagany, Saudi Arabian Embassy, LA Times, 9/21/2001

Mohand Alshehri is alive in Saudi Arabia.

According to eh Orlando Sentinel, the Aaudi Arabian embassy confirmed that ... Mohand Alshehri
... [is] not dead and had nothing to do with [9-11].
-American Free Press, 10/12/2001

Khalid Almihdhar is a computer programmer in Mecca.
"I want to think all of this is a mistake." Almihdhar was watching TV at home when friends saw his
photograph on the news and began to call to see if he was still alive.
-Chicago Tribune, 10/04/2001

Salem Alhazmi works at a chemical plant in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia.

Salem Al-Hazmi is alive and ... not one of the people whoe perished in [Flight 77]. His passport
had been stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo three years ago.
-The Guardian, 9/21/2001

Saeed Alghamdi is training to be a pilot in Tunis.
"The FBI provided no evidence of my involvement in the attacks. You can't imagine what it is like
to be described as a [dead terrorist] when you are innocent and alive."
-The Telegraph, 9/23/2001
   Ahmed Alnami is an administrative supervisor for Saudi Airlines.
   "I'm still alive, I had never even heard of Pennsylvania." He never lost his passport and found it
   very worrying that his identity appeared to have been stolen.
   -The Telegraph, 9/23/2001

   We already covered Waleed and Abdulaziz. And last but not least, Mohammed Atta's father
   claimed to receive a phone call from his son on September 12th. On September 20th and 27th,
   Mueller admitted on CNN that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers"

This page provides sources for most of these press reports.

   Indeed. After all, not even the official autopsy for Flight 77 lists the hijackers, And the opening
   paragraph makes no mention of their absence.

The victims were identified through DNA using samples provided by family members.
The alleged hijackers were not identified, the official story goes, because authorities had
no DNA samples from their relatives.

   So if there's no proof the the hijackers were members of al Qaeda, or if they were even on the
   planes in the first place, what justification do we have for bombing Afghanistan? Oh, that's
   right. The Bin Laden confession tape. On December 14th, 2001, the government released a
   tape, allegedly of bin Laden confessing to the attacks of 9-11, which they claimed to find in a
   house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

The 'confession tape' wasn't the official reason for bombing Afghanistan. Rather, the
Bush administration demanded that Taliban government hand over Osama bin Laden. The
Taliban offered to comply under the condition that the US produce evidence that bin
Laden was behind the attack.

   Except there's a number of things wrong with this tape. One, the tape itself is of very poor
   quality. And two, the man in the video looks and acts nothing like bin Laden. According to the
   FBI's website, Osama is left-handed. Yet, in this video, he is writing a note with his right hand.
   Not to mention he's wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden by Islamic law, And is never
   mentioned in the FBI's description of him. Compare this video to four other pictures of bin
   Laden. Does anybody else see a problem here?

Indeed the man in the tape is an impostor. This comparison of facial features makes it

   Until the government can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Al-Qaeda was behind
   September 11th, The American people have every reason to believe otherwise.

   “It is easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where government officials might quite
   legitimately have reasons to give false information out. It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of
   incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as
   necessary to protect vital interests.”
   -Solicitor General Theodore Olson, whose wife Barbara was killed on September 11th, 2001.

True, the burden of proof should be on the government, but we are faced with an
administration that shows flagrant disregard for the rule of law and a population that is all
too willing to accept rationalizations for outrages from pre-emptive war to illegal
detentions to the normalization of torture. In the real world, the burden of proof falls on
those working to explose the administration's crimes.

   And now for the last question of all. Why would our government do such a thing? I hope you're
   sitting down. First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center
   in July, 2001. After September 11th, Silverstein demanded $7.2 billion dollars from his insurers,
   claiming that each plane counted as a separate act of terrorism. However, on December 6th,
   2004, the courts only rewarded him with 2.2 billion dollars.

Silverstein didn't purchase the World Trade Center on July 24, 2001, a consortium headed
by him closed a 99-year lease giving them control of the complex. The $2.2 billion
awarded in 2004 was in addition to awards Silverstein had already received.

   Next we have the put options that were placed on United Airlines, American Airlines, and
   Boeing. According to the San Fransisco Chronicle, more than 2.5 Million dollars has remained

Loose Change brings up a strong point of evidence indicating foreknowledge but fails to
explain it.

A put option is a contract allowing its holder to sell a stock at a fixed price before a
specified date. If the price declines before that date, the holder can realize a profit by
purchasing stock at the lower price and selling it at the option price. In the week before
the attack put options soared on stocks hurt by the attack.

   As for 9-11 itself, Reuters reported that Convar, a German computer company is responsible
   for helping companies and accountants in New York restore their data from over 400 hard
   drives that were recovered from the World Trade Center's rubble. Convar recovered
   information from 32 different computers that suggested insider trading took place on 9-11.
   Richard Wagner, an expert at Convar:
   There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the
   plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding 100 million dollars. They thought that
   the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed.
   After their analysis, Convar handed the results over to the FBI. Although the FBI was legally
   bound to investigate who was responsible, to date they have done no such thing.

This is a different story from the insider trading mentioned a few sentences earlier.
According to the Shanghai Star credit card transactions totaling more than $100 million
surged through computers in the World Trade Center in the hours before the attack.
Convar Systeme Deutschland GmbH used a novel technology to read data from damage
hard drives recovered from the rubble.

   Moving on. According to Wikipedia, "One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored
   underneath the World Trade Center." In 1993 the value of the gold was estimated at one billion
   dollars, rumored to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. When the World Trade Center was
   destroyed, the amount of gold "far exceeded the 1993 levels." "The gold was finally recovered
   in its entirety in late 2001."
   Or was it?
   On November 1st, 2001, the Timesonline reported that a large amount of gold was discovered
   in the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that more than
   $230 million dollars was recovered from Ground Zero. However, the Comex metals trading
   division was storing gold bars for the Bank of Nova Scotia, Chase Manhattan Bank, The Bank
   of New York, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Banking, totaling $950 million dollars. And that's just
   one company.
   Rumor has it that over $160 billion dollars in gold was stored in the World Trade Center. So
   where did all the gold go? Remember the gold that was found in November, 2001? Reuters
   reported, that it was discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck, along with several cars in a
   delivery tunnel underneath World Trade Center 5. No bodies were recovered.

The figure of $950 million was calculated by 9-11 Research and reported here in 2003,
but Loose Change fails to credit that source. Loose Change badly botches this story:
Reuters didn't report that the gold was discovered in the truck -- rather it reported that the
truck had to be removed to access the gold in the vault.

   As workers got closer to the gold, authorities began restricting access to Ground Zero, joined
   by FBI and Secret Service agents. One worker who was directed away from the tunnel told a
   reporter, "If I tried to go down there, they would have shot me."
   Heavy-machinery operators and others worked under the watchful eye of more than 100 armed
   So, let me get this straight. Gold from World Trade Center 4 was found underneath World
   Trade Center 5, in an empty delivery truck, with an empty escort of cars. I think it's safe to say
   that they were running away from the South Tower. The question is, how did they know to flee
   from their stash, when not even the firefighters inside the South Tower expected it to collapse?

Loose Change doesn't get it straight: it jumps to a conclusion that the truck under WTC 5
was filled with gold by mis-reading the Reuters report. There may have been a gold heist,
but that story about the truck is not evidence for it.
   167 billion dollars in gold. 200 million is found. And that's just the money.

Just a few sentences ago, Loose Change called the $160 billion figure a rumor. Now it
states $167 billion as if it is an established fact.

   After September 11th, President Bush had and continues to have permission to do and say
   whatever he wants, all under the pretext of 9-11.
   The Patriot Act.
   The Department of Homeland Security.

For more information, see these pages:

      The USA PATRIOT Act
      The Homeland Security Act
      The Attack on Afghanistan
      The Attack on Iraq

   It's time for America to accept 9-11 for what it was: A lie which killed thousands of people, only
   in turn killing hundreds of thousands more, to make billions upon trillions of dollars.

Just look at how the armaments producers and oil and gas interests have made out.

   Are you angry yet? You should be. Every single attempt to investigate and uncover the
   truth behind 9-11 has been blackballed, ridiculed, and harassed by both the government
   and media alike, for even daring to question the official story.

Loose Change is correct about ridicule, as demonstrated by the Popular Mechanics,
Scientific American, and many other attacks,' but blackballing and harassment seems to
be hyperbole. Also, what Loose Change fails to note is that most of the ridicule exploits
sloppy and misinformed claims such as those that litter the video.

         Jimmy Walter, you spent nearly 2 million dollars on an advertising blitz to convince
         people here in New York and elsewhere that 9-11 was a self-inflicted wound. Jimmy,
         welcome. Why are you doing this?
         Thanks for having me, Geraldo. I'm doing this because a fool and his money are soon
         parted. I'm a patriot trying to defend this country from the real terrorists, who have
         damaged and changed our country. I am asking the same questions that the widows and
         orphans, parents and friends of the victims of 911 are asking, and have not had
         answered by either the 911 Commission, nor by any real investigation to the mass
         murders, that 66% of New Yorkers want investigated.
   I'll say it again. Why are they hiding from us? What are they hiding from us? And what's it going
   to take until people in this country give a damn and do something about it? America has been
   hijacked. Not by Al Qaeda. Not by Osama bin Laden. But by a group of tyrants, ready and
   willing to do whatever it takes to keep their stranglehold on this country.

   So what are we going to do about it?
   Share this information with friends, family, total strangers. Hold screenings, conferences,
   whatever you have to do to get the word out. It's up to you. Ask questions. Demand answers.

More important than any of that, contact the producers of Loose Change and encourage
them to check their facts, so that the 3rd edition of their video can't be as easily taken
apart as the 2nd edition.




 In Plane Site makes Loose Change look like it has high standards of logic -- and that's
 saying something.

                                       Return to SUMMARY

                                  Sifting Through
                                   Loose Change
                          The 9-11Research Companion to
                          LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
                      A detailed point-by-point critique of the film
                             using an illustrated transcript

                           VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
                         VOLUME 2: THE PENTAGON
                    VOLUME 3: THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
                        VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93
                           VOLUME 5: ODDITIES
                  Which points                           have value?

                               Which                don't?
                      Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
                      and Your Critical Thinking Skills

Young filmmakers Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas created the film
Loose Change, which challenges the central dogma of the official story of 9/11.
Loose Change covers a great deal of material, moving from one point to another in
rapid succession. It presents a long list of claims supporting the conclusion that 9/11
was engineered by insiders, but does so with a mixture of strong and flawed

The film has become a phenomenon in much the same way that programs like
Unsolved Mysteries, X-Files, and The Davinci Code have: it appeals more to emotion
than intellect with dramatic narration that taps into the public's anger about being lied
to by the media and the Bush administration. Loose Change has recruited an
enthusiastic following, many of whom are vehemently opposed to even constructive
criticism of the film. In contrast, the filmmakers appear to be willing listen to criticisms.
This was evident at the time of this critique's creation from the fact that the Second
Edition dropped some of the erroneous claims featured in the film's first version, such
as the pod theory, and became more apparent with the thorough re-working of the
film to create the Final Cut version, which corrects many of the errors and flagged by
this critque.

Because of its flaws, Second Edition presented an easy target for debunkers
defending the official story that the attack was the work of Islamic fundamentalists.
One example is the the very detailed debunking of the entire video entitled 9-11
Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide: And debunking of various 9/11
conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, many people -- perhaps a vast majority of
Americans -- are likely to dismiss the film's vitally important conclusions because of
the many errors it makes along the way. Not surprisingly, Second Edition has been
exploited by apologists for the official story to reinforce the stereotype that has long
been used to by the mainstream to media to bludgeon the 9/11 Truth Movement: that
all challenges to the official story are the product of irrational "conspiracy theorists."

This review critiques Second Edition by inserting comments after each point in the
transcript. It is beyond the scope of this critique to examine what the film does not
address. For example, despite its considerable breadth, Loose Change manages to
miss many of the starkest anomalies of the official story, such as the total failure of
the air defense network and the thorough blasting of the Twin Towers to dust and
metallic fragments.

We provide the 9-11 Research Companion to Loose Change 2nd Edition to foster
an understanding that, despite its many errors, the film raises questions that urgently
demand serious scrutiny. We look to achieve three major objectives:

      To help separate substantial claims about the attack from ones without merit
      To provide additional resources for readers to explore issues raised by the film
      To help the producers of Loose Change to make better future versions of their

To top