Loose Change - 9/11 conspiracy truth

[polkablues]

I think the documentary is valuable simply because it raises questions - it offers no empirical evidence, but it has enough credibility to make one reconsider.

Exactly.  It's not the answers that these kids came up with that are important (that's all speculation anyway); it's the way they show over and over how the official story cannot be correct.

So many of the arguments I see people make against the 911 truth movement are reminiscent of how people have been disregarding JFK assassination theory for decades.  They take a look at the evidence laid out, say, "Oh, so you're saying JFK was shot by four different people from six different angles by the CIA, FBI, Mafia, Cubans, Russians, and Secret Service, and Lee Harvey Oswald was sitting at home drinking Coke the whole time... that's likely."  They lump together every separate theory available until it looks like one incomprehensible mess of conspiracy, ignoring the fact that the purpose of the theories is not to make a definitive statement of what actually happened (how could they, when so much evidence has been confiscated, altered, or destroyed), but to demonstrate how, when the evidence that is available is looked at objectively, the official story can't possibly be right.  

That's what "Loose Change" does well; when it goes off into speculation, it's less effective, but in terms of poking holes into everything we've been told since that day, it's pretty damn indisputable.

The missile theory, to me, doesn't pass the sniff test, but there's just so much evidence of controlled demolition, and so little evidence that Flight 93 and the Pentagon crash happened like they're supposed to have happened.  But the thing with conspiracy of this magnitude is, the cover-up doesn't even have to be that good.  If it's easier for someone to believe something that to doubt it, they'll believe it.  And when it's something that matters this much, it's hard as hell for most people to doubt it.

[jigzaw]

I think the documentary is valuable simply because it raises questions - it offers no empirical evidence, but it has enough credibility to make one reconsider.

Exactly.  It's not the answers that these kids came up with that are important (that's all speculation anyway); it's the way they show over and over how the official story cannot be correct.

I'm afraid it's as valuable to raising questions as Tim Allen's The Santa Clause is valuable to raising questions about how those gifts got under the tree.

The problem, though, is that their "showing" that the official story can't be correct is full of misinformation and just plain b.s.  If anything it convinced me even more in the truth of the official version because it shows how far out you have to go to disprove it.

[NEON MERCURY]

You have to be really gullible to buy into this. I mean come on. The government can hide evidence of a missile hitting a building in a major american city, but they can't hide the fact that the NSA has been spying on it's own citizens?  They can't even  coordinate damage control to cover the Cheney incident. I understand how romantic conspiracy theories are, but get real.

...thank you!  for saying this..people dont understand that are government is not good at hiding things...history has proven that...but go ahead and believe this "conspiracy"...there's a sucker born every day....

you guys m ake me laugh
but i love ya'll anyways

[polkablues]

...there's a sucker born every day....

Like those who believe that what's in the history textbooks is actually history.

[Gamblour.]

That has to be some sort of logical fallacy in the argument that, "You're saying the govt is capable of this when in fact they are not capable of this? Please." It's like saying the can fly a man to the moon but they can't keep spam out of my inbox.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Alright, like I said, I'm not entirely convinced by the missile theory either, and at one time I even agreed that it was false (after reading this), but that website, like so many of the others, responds to only the weak evidence and doesn't show you the images of what appears to be a missile.

So, RK (or some other reasonable person), help me reconcile this, cause I'm still sort of on the fence. If that's not a missile, what is that object that appears (from every angle) to shoot from the airplane (and then hit the building and explode) before the airplane's impact? What else could it be? And if it were a missile, how would it look? How would it be different?

On the question of "why would they shoot a missile into the tower, especially if it's going to be detonated anyway?"... Well, if they can get away with it, why not, if for no other reason than to create a larger, more dramatic explosion? If that was a remote-controlled military aircraft, how much farther is it going really to shoot a missile (with extremely precise timing, if that is a missile) from said military arcraft?

And on the question of "why would they be able to hide this if the government is not good at hiding things?"... Ultimately, yes, the government is not good at hiding things, and that's the point here. They didn't hide this very well, because we can see it. Anyone with an open mind who can read and pay attention to a movie is able to realize at least that the official story is an absolute lie. That, I would say, is a failure to hide things.

So why has the media successfully marginalized "conspiracy theorists" and pushed them into the same corner with UFO enthusiasts? And why do so many people believe the official story simply because it is the official story? Well...

there's a sucker born every day....

[RegularKarate]

Firstly, I agree with Ghost and Polka in that there is reason to question presented in the video, but one could take it more seriously if it were so insistant on one theory being the right one.

JB, a misile would take more than one frame to launch off a plane and why would they risk everyone seeing it if it's not going to "help" the building any more than a plane hitting it (especially if it's geared up to be demolished from the inside).  I can't tell you what the flash is, but it's very likely it's just a reflection (yes, sometimes you can see them from multiple angles, especially when you consider than it looks completely different from every angle).

As far as the "pod" goes, I thought it even the craziest crazies admitted that it was just the way the plane was built.  I guarantee that if they wanted to hide a missile, they could do it better than having a pod there, they KNOW that the second plane is going to have every camera in the vacinity on it.

[Jeremy Blackman]

To reiterate:

If that's not a missile, what is that object that appears (from every angle) to shoot from the airplane (and then hit the building and explode) before the airplane's impact? What else could it be?

Here's the thing. Something hit the building before the plane, and it exploded. I don't know what it is. But it's not the plane, because it hit the building before the plane (which was much more clear in the closer side view images that I posted in Idle Chatter long ago, but they're gone now and I can't find them anywhere else). And it's not a flash, because it moves independently of the plane and explodes, and flashes don't do that, especially from multiple angles.

JB, a misile would take more than one frame to launch off a plane

This is sort of what I wanted to hear, and I'd like to hear more opinions about that, i.e. do all missiles fire at the same speed or are there unconventional missiles or even something projected from the plane that we wouldn't call a missile that would cause the effect we see here. In any case, I haven't heard a plausible non-missile explanation for it.

I don't think the rest of your argument is convincing at all, the bit about "crazies" and the "why would they shoot a missile?" question, which I've already responded to.

[Pas]

On the question of "why would they shoot a missile into the tower, especially if it's going to be detonated anyway?"... Well, if they can get away with it, why not

'Dick, I think we should launch a missile before the plane hits the tower
-Come on George we all love launching missiles like the next guy but this is serious
-Pleaaaaseee
-Allright, allright...anyway we can get away with it, why not.'

[Jeremy Blackman]

This seems to at least call into question the missile theory. These two frames are from the gif I posted on the last page. (Frames 7 and 8).

   

You can see that the explosion occurs when the nose of the plane has already entered the building. An image from an anti-skeptic website confirms this:



Alright, so all this image proves is that some kind of small explosion occurs after the nose makes impact. What's the origin, then, of the explosion? Is fuel stored in the nose of the plane? What would make that part of the plane explosive, if the actual contact did in fact cause the explosion? Or did contact not at all cause the explosion?

I suppose you could say that a missile still could have been fired from a missile pod and that the nose making contact with the building wouldn't have prevented that. Maybe.

Now take another look at video, and watch the bottom left frame. The bright orange explosion seems to originate not from the nose of the plane, but from a spot on the right bottom side, which seems even to be behind the cockpit. And it does seem to shoot forward in those two frames before it disappears into the building. (If it were a normal explosion caused by something on the plane, why would it appear outside the building and disappear into the building so quickly?)

Also, take another look at the explosion in frame up above, and look at the video again. The explosion clearly appears to be separate from the airplane and its impact. (Also notice that the still above seems to have captured the later part of the explosion and the video linked in this paragraph seems to capture the earlier part of the explosion.) Look at the shape of the airplane, where it has entered the building, and notice that the explosion is entirely outside that area. How can that be explained?

I'm not trying to prove anything... these are sincere questions about something that is very unclear.

[RegularKarate]

Well that could be almost anything... the one thing that I've decided while watching it is that it's definitely NOT a missile.

watching this frame by frame... NOTHING shoots out of the plane and the orange flash (which probably IS some kind of explosion) is completely stationary. 
Not only that, but it's clearly PART of the impact, it's just on the side.  If the entire nose blew up, I'm sure some of the explosion would be inside the building and some would seap out to the side.   JB, if you look at the frame BEFORE the flash, there's NOTHING that has been projected outside of the plane.  If there was a missile, it was completely invisible.

[matt35mm]

If you believe that there were bombs inside the building, would it not far more likely be something that was detonated a split second before the plane crash (perhaps to allow for easier entry into the building)?  This is common practice in films when a stunt person is thrown through a glass pane--they detonate a small explosive that creates strategic cracks in the pane a split second before the stunt person flies through it.

I don't know what the logistics of a plane hitting a building, but I notice that the plane slipped all the way into the building fairly smoothly without flying all the way out of the building.

At any rate, I agree that this movie has a lot of questionable stuff about it, but in focusing more on the evidence than the specific conclusions of the narrator, it's a good and important spark for re-consideration of the events for the general public.  A lot of people have always questioned the official reports, but I'd still say that the vast majority of the American public have not been entirely ready until about now to confront the issue again.

So, though I would never ask anyone to believe everything in this movie, I would ask them to see it the film, and to re-evaluate what 9/11 really was and is to all of us as Americans.  Therefore, Xerxes and I have arranged to get this screened at our university (UC-Santa Cruz).  Hopefully it will go well.

[Gamblour.]

If you believe that there were bombs inside the building, would it not far more likely be something that was detonated a split second before the plane crash (perhaps to allow for easier entry into the building)?  This is common practice in films when a stunt person is thrown through a glass pane--they detonate a small explosive that creates strategic cracks in the pane a split second before the stunt person flies through it.

What?

That's the most illogical thing I've ever heard, and I'm not pointing it out to attack you matt. I'm pointing out that analyzing frames like this is almost completely useless. They are bad data. And any questions stemming from their use are bad questions that lead to even more illogical hypotheses, like suggesting that the pilots of the planes were able to aim for one and only one window pane in the entire building. Granted it's probably impossible for a great military pilot, it's just absurd to think that the same people who showed they were bad pilots in flight school could do the same here.

These frames are almost a joke. And I completely believe there is something sinister going on, I love the movie. JB, say you were on the other side of the argument right now. Wouldn't you be laughing at this ridiculous attempt to analyze a SINGLE frame? And don't you think using such evidence hurts your argument? You're talking about two frames, between which a world of time occurs, and none of us know enough about anything (engineering, science, physics, except for our notions of "common sense") to prove otherwise. Can we start using more tangible sources of debate and information?

[Jeremy Blackman]

don't you think using such evidence hurts your argument?

Okay, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not making an argument, at least not about the missiles. I've tried to make that clear. I've gone back and forth, even within the space of one post, and I don't think we know yet. And yes, I also want better evidence, something more substantial than these few frames. I'm just throwing this stuff out there.

that could be almost anything

While I don't know that it's a missile, I can say with some certainty that it explodes and that it's separate from the airplane. I think that's limited to less than "almost anything." And yet I still don't know what it is.

[Pubrick]

i formally request a summary of the current state of this thread.