Xixax Film Forum

NOTE: THIS DISCUSSION WAS SPLIT FROM ANOTHER THREAD (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2233.1695).

I was able to download Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/). Everyone should seriously see this. Even if you're not interested in 9/11. You will be.

There's sourced, detailed, incontrovertible evidence here. I'd like to see anyone try to refute this. If before I thought "probably," now I'm thinking "definitely." Seriously. See the movie, and see what you think of the evidence. There's absolutely no reason to believe the official story... it's absurd in light of the evidence, and it's horrifying that the media has refused to reveal what's screamingly obvious, especially when mainstream sources have connected so many of the dots of what is now a clear picture. It's horrifying that the official story is blindly believed while so few people can bring themselves to consider the reality. It's also horrifying, of course, that our government has done this... and that thought in the abstract is pretty difficult to wrap your head around, but here it's absolutely concrete.

It's about and hour and 20 minutes long. And the production value is extremely high (well, except for a few awkward voiceover moments, but it was made by three college students).

Here's the torrent I used. (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/506503/911_Loose_Change_2nd_Edition_DVDRip) (And if you find a different one, be sure it's the 2nd edition.)

They did leave a few things out (or only mentioned them briefly), especially the evidence that the planes that hit the towers were military aircraft and fired missiles moments before impact. (I brought this up a while ago in this thread, and there are pictures and video from most of the networks that support this.) Also missing (mostly) is the Saudi connection, which might be kind of obvious, but it's crucial.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 16, 2006, 04:48:36 PM

They did leave a few things out (or only mentioned them briefly), especially the evidence that the planes that hit the towers were military aircraft and fired missiles moments before impact. (I brought this up a while ago in this thread, and there are pictures and video from most of the networks that support this.) Also missing (mostly) is the Saudi connection, which might be kind of obvious, but it's crucial.

You could miss a lot on the 9/11 scandal and there would still be a lot of support on what you did know.  This isn't just a theory by some cryptologist, this situation is glaringly apparent.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 16, 2006, 04:48:36 PM
I was able to download Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/). Everyone should seriously see this. Even if you're not interested in 9/11. You will be.

There's sourced, detailed, incontrovertible evidence here. I'd like to see anyone try to refute this. If before I thought "probably," now I'm thinking "definitely." Seriously. See the movie, and see what you think of the evidence. There's absolutely no reason to believe the official story... it's absurd in light of the evidence, and it's horrifying that the media has refused to reveal what's screamingly obvious, especially when mainstream sources have connected so many of the dots of what is now a clear picture. It's horrifying that the official story is blindly believed while so few people can bring themselves to consider the reality. It's also horrifying, of course, that our government has done this... and that thought in the abstract is pretty difficult to wrap your head around, but here it's absolutely concrete.

It's about and hour and 20 minutes long. And the production value is extremely high (well, except for a few awkward voiceover moments, but it was made by three college students).

Here's the torrent I used. (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/506503/911_Loose_Change_2nd_Edition_DVDRip) (And if you find a different one, be sure it's the 2nd edition.)

They did leave a few things out (or only mentioned them briefly), especially the evidence that the planes that hit the towers were military aircraft and fired missiles moments before impact. (I brought this up a while ago in this thread, and there are pictures and video from most of the networks that support this.) Also missing (mostly) is the Saudi connection, which might be kind of obvious, but it's crucial.

holy shit man...i just watched this. what an amazing fascinating and yes, horrifying documentary. The fact they point out that is so obvious but yet so surprising is the video evidence of a controlled demolition. after seeing this i was honestly in a state of existential despair...what the hell is going on in this country? how the fuck did this happen? so many questions. all of my friends who watched it with me...most of those who called fahrenheit 911 propaganda bullshit were speechless, there is absolutely no denying most of the evidence this film puts forth. You're right JB everyone! should see this.

Quote from: squints on February 18, 2006, 02:38:46 AM

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 16, 2006, 04:48:36 PM
I was able to download Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/). Everyone should seriously see this. Even if you're not interested in 9/11. You will be.

There's sourced, detailed, incontrovertible evidence here. I'd like to see anyone try to refute this. If before I thought "probably," now I'm thinking "definitely." Seriously. See the movie, and see what you think of the evidence. There's absolutely no reason to believe the official story... it's absurd in light of the evidence, and it's horrifying that the media has refused to reveal what's screamingly obvious, especially when mainstream sources have connected so many of the dots of what is now a clear picture. It's horrifying that the official story is blindly believed while so few people can bring themselves to consider the reality. It's also horrifying, of course, that our government has done this... and that thought in the abstract is pretty difficult to wrap your head around, but here it's absolutely concrete.

It's about and hour and 20 minutes long. And the production value is extremely high (well, except for a few awkward voiceover moments, but it was made by three college students).

Here's the torrent I used. (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/506503/911_Loose_Change_2nd_Edition_DVDRip) (And if you find a different one, be sure it's the 2nd edition.)

They did leave a few things out (or only mentioned them briefly), especially the evidence that the planes that hit the towers were military aircraft and fired missiles moments before impact. (I brought this up a while ago in this thread, and there are pictures and video from most of the networks that support this.) Also missing (mostly) is the Saudi connection, which might be kind of obvious, but it's crucial.

holy shit man...i just watched this. what an amazing fascinating and yes, horrifying documentary. The fact they point out that is so obvious but yet so surprising is the video evidence of a controlled demolition. after seeing this i was honestly in a state of existential despair...what the hell is going on in this country? how the fuck did this happen? so many questions. all of my friends who watched it with me...most of those who called fahrenheit 911 propaganda bullshit were speechless, there is absolutely no denying most of the evidence this film puts forth. You're right JB everyone! should see this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
hey, now you don't even have to download it!!

Gut-wrenching.  That was the first time I'd seen the photos of the Pentagon before the ceiling came down, and I'll be damned if that's not a totally cylindrical hole in the side of that building.  Where are the holes where the wings went through the building?  If the wings hit so hard that they disintegrated on impact, why aren't the windows right next to the hole even damaged?

And my god... the balls on whoever thought they could get away with showing people an empty V-shaped crater in a field and telling them it was a plane crash!

I'd heard all the theories before and everything, but this was the most systematic dismantling of the official story I've seen.  The part where they're pointing out in the video footage of the towers collapsing all the spots where you can see detonations lower in the buildings... "Here... and here... and here.... and here... and here.... and here... and here... and here......"  Just... wow.  Speechless.

Quote from: polkablues on February 19, 2006, 11:08:11 PM
The part where they're pointing out in the video footage of the towers collapsing all the spots where you can see detonations lower in the buildings... "Here... and here... and here.... and here... and here.... and here... and here... and here......"  Just... wow.  Speechless.

that's the part that had my jaw dropping and my gut turning.

i just bought both editions on ebay. i'll try to get them screened here.

Quote from: squints on February 19, 2006, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: polkablues on February 19, 2006, 11:08:11 PM
The part where they're pointing out in the video footage of the towers collapsing all the spots where you can see detonations lower in the buildings... "Here... and here... and here.... and here... and here.... and here... and here... and here......"  Just... wow.  Speechless.

that's the part that had my jaw dropping and my gut turning.

terrorists can control demolitions too :yabbse-undecided:

I know!!

<-----------terrorist

Quote from: Pedro the Alpaca on February 20, 2006, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: squints on February 19, 2006, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: polkablues on February 19, 2006, 11:08:11 PM
The part where they're pointing out in the video footage of the towers collapsing all the spots where you can see detonations lower in the buildings... "Here... and here... and here.... and here... and here.... and here... and here... and here......"  Just... wow.  Speechless.

that's the part that had my jaw dropping and my gut turning.

terrorists can control demolitions too :yabbse-undecided:

I also found this (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html), what do people think?

Quote from: Pedro the Alpaca on February 20, 2006, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: squints on February 19, 2006, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: polkablues on February 19, 2006, 11:08:11 PM
The part where they're pointing out in the video footage of the towers collapsing all the spots where you can see detonations lower in the buildings... "Here... and here... and here.... and here... and here.... and here... and here... and here......"  Just... wow.  Speechless.

that's the part that had my jaw dropping and my gut turning.

terrorists can control demolitions too :yabbse-undecided:

The thing that's argued is that demolitions of that magnitude take weeks to set up, maybe days if you have a big crew working diligently, which assumes that either we're dealing with very patient ninjas, or people in the trade centers were collaborating with the demolitions set up.

ninjas!! i knew it

Quote from: Walrus on February 20, 2006, 01:26:53 PM
The thing that's argued is that demolitions of that magnitude take weeks to set up, maybe days if you have a big crew working diligently, which assumes that either we're dealing with very patient ninjas, or people in the trade centers were collaborating with the demolitions set up.

Exactly.  The movie details the very unusual regrouping of security teams in the towers a few weeks before 9/11, which would have been the only opportunity anyone would have had to plant explosives that extensively.  Seeing as al Quaeda doesn't have operational authority over WTC security, this was set up by whomever did.

Quote from: pete on February 20, 2006, 11:21:51 AM
I also found this (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html), what do people think?

That's interesting, but none of the pictures they showed on that site actually refute the no-plane theory.  It shows areas around the main hole that could possibly be wing damage, but that still leaves the question unanswered of how the wings (along with any other recognizable wreckage that might actually be from a Boeing jet) completely disintegrated and/or melted in the sub-1100 degree fire that ensued.

yeah, this was amazing.  it made me sick. 

Quote from: polkablues on February 20, 2006, 05:48:48 PM

Quote from: Walrus on February 20, 2006, 01:26:53 PM
The thing that's argued is that demolitions of that magnitude take weeks to set up, maybe days if you have a big crew working diligently, which assumes that either we're dealing with very patient ninjas, or people in the trade centers were collaborating with the demolitions set up.

Exactly.  The movie details the very unusual regrouping of security teams in the towers a few weeks before 9/11, which would have been the only opportunity anyone would have had to plant explosives that extensively.  Seeing as al Quaeda doesn't have operational authority over WTC security, this was set up by whomever did.

I understand this, it's just too troubling for me to believe.  Do you think this will ever be widely accepted?  Like the farce of the Maine pre-Spanish American war?  probably not

in hindsight, we'll be telling our children what it was like living under the most twisted administration this country has ever seen.

If the Bush administration had even the slightest thing to do with the controlled demolition isn't that...um...genocide?

Quote from: squints on February 21, 2006, 01:32:05 AM
If the Bush administration had even the slightest thing to do with the controlled demolition isn't that...um...genocide?

no. when you have children don't tell them words without knowing the meaning.

it would be mass murder, a massacre. genocide is mass murder of a group based on nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion.

Quote from: Pubrick on February 21, 2006, 01:41:07 AM

Quote from: squints on February 21, 2006, 01:32:05 AM
If the Bush administration had even the slightest thing to do with the controlled demolition isn't that...um...genocide?

no. when you have children don't tell them words without knowing the meaning.

it would be mass murder, a massacre. genocide is mass murder of a group based on nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion.

well he doesn't care about black people

Quote from: Pedro the Alpaca on February 21, 2006, 01:00:38 AM

it's just too troubling for me to believe.  Do you think this will ever be widely accepted?

That's the point.  The more ridiculous a conspiracy, the more it's feasible.  If people would ignore it based on its 'implausibility,' it's already got most of the coverup work done.  America will refuse to believe that it had anything to do with 9/11 because we don't want to think we live in a country that would do that.  That's the problem.  We see America as an entity, which assumes everyone was in on it.  Not every person just the right people.

Too many things are fishy about 9/11, but you know how enraged people get when you treat it as anything other than an act of Jihad.  It was the same thing with JFK, and it's happening again.  If you talk about it, it's dismissed, if you keep trying to bring it up, you're an obsessive conspiracy theorist and once you're deemed that term you will lose almost all credibility.

I think this movie deserves its own thread by now. EDIT: And now it is done.

Screenings of this movie are a pretty good idea.  I think there's so much to take at once, though, and you can't (indeed, the filmmakers say that you shouldn't) take everything they say at face value.  But it does make clear that things are fishy, and this movie, better than Fahrenheit 9/11 did, could potentially lead to more serious re-evaluation from the public.  It's well done, and an especially powerful example of independent filmmaking.

it's really good except for occasionally bad narration and a few weak points, like the guy who said his full name to his mother/faked Osama videotape. i was a bit puzzled by the claim that Atta is still alive, though. the investigative reporter Sander Hicks did extensive research on Atta's stay in Venice, Florida and the suspicious information about his flight training, most of which served to prove the same premise as Loose Change. the conflicting reports on Atta from two members of 'the truth movement' are somewhat confusing.

this was fantastic. it actually made me regret being such a drunken fool in college. god damnit i shoulda been producing stuff like this!!

Quote from: Hedwig on February 22, 2006, 03:56:13 PM
it's really good except for occasionally bad narration and a few weak points, like the guy who said his full name to his mother/faked Osama videotape. i was a bit puzzled by the claim that Atta is still alive, though. the investigative reporter Sander Hicks did extensive research on Atta's stay in Venice, Florida and the suspicious information about his flight training, most of which served to prove the same premise as Loose Change. the conflicting reports on Atta from two members of 'the truth movement' are somewhat confusing.

Atta hasn't been proven to be alive.  In fact, Loose Change mentions that the only evidence that he is was an uncorroborated statement by his father.  But that still leaves eight (I think) supposed hijackers that are absolutely, 100% not dead.

And why do you call the phony Osama tape a weak point?  That seemed pretty conclusive to me.

Quote from: polkablues on February 22, 2006, 06:15:48 PM
And why do you call the phony Osama tape a weak point?  That seemed pretty conclusive to me.

the right-hand/left-hand error is convincing. i thought the weak part was when they showed the video placed beside images of the real Osama and said, "do they look the same to you?"

these are minor points that hardly detract from the bigger picture. advice to those who haven't downloaded the torrent yet is: don't even bother with the extra footage. it's mostly the directors going to a 9-11 memorial, posting information about their film screening around town, and informing passersby/arguing with an officer about 9-11. there is one especially awkward interview with a widow of a 9-11 victim that made me cringe. the actual documentary is a brilliant assemblage of information that everyone should see.

I'm throughly shaken.  I used the Google Video link and just intended to watch the first 5 minutes.  81 minutes later and I'm horrified and fascinated by what I saw.  

But there is one thing in particular that I'm confused about.  I would have backtracked but everytime I did anything like that, for some reason the movie would freeze.  They were implying that Flight 93 never crashed, correct?  But it landed in Cleveland and the passengers were evacuated and taken somewhere and all these calls were faked?  Can someone clear that up for me if I'm wrong?  I don't know if I buy that but they make a convincing argument.  The thing about Flight 93 is that my best friend remembers hearing on the news initially that it was shot down, and then Rumsfeld made that slip when referring to it one time in Iraq as having been shot down.

But the skeptic in me keeps thinking, if the government can't respond to a fucking hurricane in a major city fast enough, how the hell are they going to pull off something like this?

This brought back a lot of shitty memories of that whole week for me.  It's going to piss off the 9/11 widows something awful too.  And that will completely discredit it for the rest of the country who hasn't seen it.  Which explains why something this incendiary wound up on Google Video.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 16, 2006, 04:48:36 PM
And the production value is extremely high (well, except for a few awkward voiceover moments, but it was made by three college students).

Yeah, the big problem with the voiceover was all the "Let me get this straight..." and "Guess what?" and other sarcastic bits like that undercut the seriousness of the subject and the necessity of the audience taking it seriously.

Quote from: hacksparrow on February 22, 2006, 07:25:25 PM
But the skeptic in me keeps thinking, if the government can't respond to a fucking hurricane in a major city fast enough, how the hell are they going to pull off something like this?

the two missions are motivated by completely different forces.

Quote from: hacksparrow on February 22, 2006, 07:25:25 PM
I used the Google Video link and just intended to watch the first 5 minutes.  81 minutes later and I'm horrified and fascinated by what I saw.

me too.  i was getting ready to go to sleep and i ended up watching the entire thing sitting up in bed.

Quote from: coxsparrow on February 22, 2006, 07:25:25 PM
It's going to piss off the 9/11 widows something awful too.  And that will completely discredit it for the rest of the country who hasn't seen it.  Which explains why something this incendiary wound up on Google Video.

this is something i keep thinking about. it's shocking and horrifying to me, and i didn't lose anyone on 9-11. how can this information be communicated to someone who did? i don't think the director's personal approach as shown in the extra-footage included in the torrent ('our government killed your husband') was the right approach. but what other approach is there? how does one go about discussing something so shocking and horrifying with a widow(er) to whom faith in their government and hatred for their perceived enemy is such a major source of comfort?

as an eye-opener i thought it was prety amazing, but as a movie (if i were to go to have seen it in a theatre) i merely liked it.  i certainly have some problems with the narration (sometimes a little over the top, which kinda detracted from whatever point he was trying to convey), and it should have went a little more in depth in to some of the stuff, and supported some the suggestions with more concrete facts.  also, when he is proving how some stuff scientifically can't be true, i think it would be more convicing to hear it from someone who is professional in that particular field.   not to mention the music really bothered me.   

but more importantly, some of this stuff is so shocking and indisputable.   this is what michael moores movie should have been about and what oliver stones should be about.  i'm showing this to everyone i know. 

EDIT:  And I too was confused coxsparrow.  are the filmmakers implying that the people of that flight didn't die?  or at least weren't kiled by a hijacking?

what i liked about the movie is that it didnt feel the need to draw all the conclusions.  it just points out a bunch of stuff and says 'something doesnt add up here', without going fully into whatever 'conspiracy theories'.  just, presenting the information and not always trying to guess WHY or WHO was behind something.  i think if they had tried to do it that way it would've come off less credible but since they really just point out a lot of information that was available on the news or in the 9/11 commission book or from various credible sources it's kind of up to you to see.  i'd like to see somebody refute the claims made in this movie because you think 'how can this possibly be true?' and 'why has no one else done anything to investiage this, that a college student had to?' but he made a pretty good case for it.

Quote from: Hedwig on February 22, 2006, 07:34:31 PM

Quote from: hacksparrow on February 22, 2006, 07:25:25 PM
But the skeptic in me keeps thinking, if the government can't respond to a fucking hurricane in a major city fast enough, how the hell are they going to pull off something like this?

the two missions are motivated by completely different forces.

But Spike Lee is doing a doc on the govt's involvement with Katrina.

Also, this doc is mind blowing.

Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 22, 2006, 10:46:08 PM

Quote from: Hedwig on February 22, 2006, 07:34:31 PM

Quote from: hacksparrow on February 22, 2006, 07:25:25 PM
But the skeptic in me keeps thinking, if the government can't respond to a fucking hurricane in a major city fast enough, how the hell are they going to pull off something like this?

the two missions are motivated by completely different forces.

But Spike Lee is doing a doc on the govt's involvement with Katrina.

oh i meant that the government's refusal (or 'inability') to provide adequate help to the people during Katrina is the result of a different problem (related to race and class, specifically) not simply incompetence, and doesn't detract from my belief in their alleged ability to concoct a scheme as complex as the one exposed in Loose Change.

Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on February 22, 2006, 10:46:08 PM

But Spike Lee is doing a doc on the govt's involvement with Katrina.

Do you have a link to anything on that?

Quote from: Walrus on February 23, 2006, 03:47:07 PM
Do you have a link to anything on that?

http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2306.msg205047#msg205047

Does the film ever address where the hell the planeloads of people who "didn't" fly into the buildings are?

Quote from: jigzaw on February 24, 2006, 05:10:22 PM
Does the film ever address where the hell the planeloads of people who "didn't" fly into the buildings are?

Wizard did it.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 24, 2006, 05:10:22 PM
Does the film ever address where the hell the planeloads of people who "didn't" fly into the buildings are?

You could always watch it yourself and find out, rather than being willfully and obnoxiously ignorant.

I hate Bush, but another "I hate Bush" doc by college students doesn't sound real appealing.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 24, 2006, 06:38:55 PM
I hate Bush, but another "I hate Bush" doc by college students doesn't sound real appealing.

Please watch the movie.  It goes far beyond what you think it is.

Quote from: polkablues on February 24, 2006, 06:03:49 PM

Quote from: jigzaw on February 24, 2006, 05:10:22 PM
Does the film ever address where the hell the planeloads of people who "didn't" fly into the buildings are?

You could always watch it yourself and find out, rather than being willfully and obnoxiously ignorant.

I'm always respectful on boards, but frankly, you don't have the slightest fucking idea about my level of ignorance or knowledge about anything.  UFO dudes will also call you ignorant for not buying their abduction stories.  So, the whole world, including Bin Laden and Al Jazeera and the entire American media are in on the conspiracy to help Bush destroy the U.S., but three dudes in a dorm figured out the secrets of the universe?  Cool.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 24, 2006, 06:43:20 PM

Quote from: polkablues on February 24, 2006, 06:03:49 PM

Quote from: jigzaw on February 24, 2006, 05:10:22 PM
Does the film ever address where the hell the planeloads of people who "didn't" fly into the buildings are?

You could always watch it yourself and find out, rather than being willfully and obnoxiously ignorant.

I'm always respectful on boards, but frankly, you don't have the slightest fucking idea about my level of ignorance or knowledge about anything.  UFO dudes will also call you ignorant for not buying their abduction stories.  So, the whole world, including Bin Laden and Al Jazeera and the entire American media are in on the conspiracy to help Bush destroy the U.S., but three dudes in a dorm figured out the secrets of the universe?  Cool.

I wasn't calling you ignorant as a person.  I was just referring to that single post, which made a snide dismissal of a film you know nothing about because you haven't seen it.  Watch the damn movie.

jigzaw, what the fuck dude? you replied once reasonably under polka's post and then again 4 minutes later in a completely crazy way. did it take you 4 mins to misunderstand what he was saying?

polka was right to say you should watch the movie yourself. you're asking for a third-hand account to justify what you already think isn't worth a damn.. yeah as stupid as that sounds, that's what you're doing. either watch it or shut the hell up. oh, and try to reply only once to things.. tell that second personality of yours that once is enough.

Watched it, and found it laughable.  The dudes are clearly devoted, but this is juvenalia, and not very convincing.  Their evidence has more holes and leaps of faith than the official story.  I wouldn't even know where to start... a shaky tripod??  I blow on my tripod and it shakes.  Bin Laden saying he would never kill innocent people?  There are hours of footage of him from before the attacks explaining why American citizens are legitimate targets and not innocent people.  Anyway, whatever. 

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 04:06:25 PM
I blow on my tripod and it shakes.

Yeah...and it's amazing how it also shakes things off buildings...

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 04:06:25 PM
Watched it, and found it laughable.  The dudes are clearly devoted, but this is juvenalia, and not very convincing.  Their evidence has more holes and leaps of faith than the official story.  I wouldn't even know where to start... a shaky tripod??  I blow on my tripod and it shakes.  Bin Laden saying he would never kill innocent people?  There are hours of footage of him from before the attacks explaining why American citizens are legitimate targets and not innocent people.  Anyway, whatever. 

You're only addressing some of the movie's minor points. Try to refute the controlled demolition evidence, the absence of preventive fighter jets, the Pentagon hoax...

Quote from: Hedwig on February 25, 2006, 04:51:09 PM

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 04:06:25 PM
Watched it, and found it laughable.  The dudes are clearly devoted, but this is juvenalia, and not very convincing.  Their evidence has more holes and leaps of faith than the official story.  I wouldn't even know where to start... a shaky tripod??  I blow on my tripod and it shakes.  Bin Laden saying he would never kill innocent people?  There are hours of footage of him from before the attacks explaining why American citizens are legitimate targets and not innocent people.  Anyway, whatever. 

You're only addressing some of the movie's minor points. Try to refute the controlled demolition evidence, the absence of preventive fighter jets, the Pentagon hoax...

(cool avatar)

The controlled demolition "evidence" is so circumstantial that it's hard to even address.  It's clear that the tapes show some windows being blown out several floors below the coming collapse.  These really don't look like bombs exploding to me, but a lot more like the obvoius air pressure created while the building is folding in like an accordion. 

Another silly point is, the holes in the twin-towers had the clear shape of the jet, along with wingspan and so the Pentagon should have also, without mentioning how very different the outside of those buildings are.  The Trade Center was not enclosed in tons of steel-reinforced concrete and 2500-pound blast-proof windows.  They also don't even mention the supposition that the wings, being made to fly and of much lighter material than the Pentagon, probably were collapsed and folded into the body of the plane.

The one thing that's remotely plausible to me is that Flight 93 may have been shot down and that fact covered up.  I might be willing to buy that.  But the filmmakers set out to "prove" that flight 93 was shot down, and that flight 93 landed.  Which is true?  Are those dead passengers still hiding in the Cleveland airport?  They also go so far as to say the government went to the extent of finding out who was on the planes, recording their voices, then calling their families pretending to be the passengers. 

The problem with it, really, is that they go into it with a point to prove.  They've decided that Bush did it and pass along the most dubious and already-debunked of the theories out there (why in the world would they need to shoot a little missile into the building ahead of the plane, especially if the building was already rigged with bombs?).  They don't address at all, the scores of Bin Laden tapes that are real where he talks about 9/11 and the attacks.  Nor do they address that this conspiracy would require thousands, if not tens of thousands of Americans to pull off, and the entire American media and the entire international media to hold up.  And not one leak.  Not one.  Every stupid thing the government does has leaks, and this government action has less first-person testimony than the Roswell alien autopsies. 

They're making the allegations, so the burden of proof is on them.  In my opinion, they don't prove much, except that the government is frustratingly secretive (which I do agree with).   

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
The controlled demolition "evidence" is so circumstantial that it's hard to even address.  It's clear that the tapes show some windows being blown out several floors below the coming collapse.  These really don't look like bombs exploding to me, but a lot more like the obvoius air pressure created while the building is folding in like an accordion. 

But why would a construction that huge and powerful "fold like an accordian" unless some other form of explosives was used to dismantle its foundation? It defies any scientific explanation. jigzaw, there was so much more evidence presented than simply the footage of the windows being blown out. Didn't you see the general information, statistics, and footage of controlled demolitions that perfectly matched the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
Another silly point is, the holes in the twin-towers had the clear shape of the jet, along with wingspan and so the Pentagon should have also, without mentioning how very different the outside of those buildings are.  The Trade Center was not enclosed in tons of steel-reinforced concrete and 2500-pound blast-proof windows.  They also don't even mention the supposition that the wings, being made to fly and of much lighter material than the Pentagon, probably were collapsed and folded into the body of the plane.

Again, you're only addressing one, single, relatively minor point. The shape of the hole in the Pentagon being too small to compromise a plane is worth considering, but what about the hole penetrated in the building, the absence of debris, the recovered debris that didn't match the parts of the reported plane, the confiscated surveillance tapes, the conflicting eyewitness reports?

And what about this:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plaguepuppy.net%2Fpublic_html%2Fcollapse%2520update%2Fwtc-7.jpg&hash=5ded6c9acb7219ccdc4479b3b71d5e25e5c8d6d5)

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
They're making the allegations, so the burden of proof is on them.  In my opinion, they don't prove much, except that the government is frustratingly secretive (which I do agree with).   

The allegations themselves arise partially from the government's frustrating secretiveness. . . Why would the government be so frustratingly secretive if they didn't have something to hide?

Ok, I watched the movie, and I would like to urge those of you who watched it to read this article from Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

It answers a lot of the questions rasied in the film, with sources.  It deals with WTC 7, Flight 93, the "white jet", and the controlled detonation claims.  It's a little long, but will take much less time to read than the film took to watch.  If you're honest about wanting to understand what happened, you'll at least take a look at what some other people have to say on the subject matter. 

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 08:24:33 PM
It answers a lot of the questions rasied in the film, with sources. 

Not really. It does make unfair generalizations about "9/11 conspiracy theorists" and weak attempts at refutation using shoddy sources like The 9/11 Commission Report! I'd debunk it on a point-by-point basis, but it's already been done: http://911review.com/pm/markup/

I would hardly call that a debunking. 
Whatever, y'all are sold.  Enjoy your X-Files.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 09:07:43 PM
I would hardly call that a debunking. 

Why?

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 09:07:43 PM
Whatever, y'all are sold. Enjoy your X-Files.

I'm completely convinced that the official story is fabricated and that it is likely that the American government is responsible. I don't think anyone "enjoys" the idea of their own government being involved in something so corrupt and immoral. I don't see anything wrong with pushing for real investigations and demanding answers for the plethora of unanswered questions.

i don't care for the x-files

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 04:06:25 PM
I wouldn't even know where to start... a shaky tripod??  I blow on my tripod and it shakes.

The point was that the tripod shaking corresponds perfectly with what appears to be happening on the building, not that shaking by itself is evidence of demolition.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 04:06:25 PMBin Laden saying he would never kill innocent people?  There are hours of footage of him from before the attacks explaining why American citizens are legitimate targets and not innocent people.

The movie doesn't say he's not a terrorist or that he doesn't want to kill American civillians. In fact, it suggests that what he had done before (terrorism), and what he may have wanted to do again, he wasn't able to do under the Taliban. It is curious that the Taliban would willingly make themselves such an easy target. I'd like to see more on that to be entirely convinced, but it's an interesting idea.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
Another silly point is, the holes in the twin-towers had the clear shape of the jet, along with wingspan and so the Pentagon should have also, without mentioning how very different the outside of those buildings are.  The Trade Center was not enclosed in tons of steel-reinforced concrete and 2500-pound blast-proof windows.  They also don't even mention the supposition that the wings, being made to fly and of much lighter material than the Pentagon, probably were collapsed and folded into the body of the plane.

You're really reaching here to defend the official story, picking out (and trying to invalidate) one or two of the doubts expressed in the movie, ignoring the rest of the evidence and the context.

"Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves." [Cut to the pictures of the light poles, torn neatly out of the ground, lying on their sides, unbent and without a scratch on them.]

Also, the plan absolutely did not crash onto the ground (as the official story goes), and this is proven in the movie. The lawn is undamaged. And seriously, take a look at the pictures. It looks like a series of explosions hit the building, not like something crashed into it. And what about the engines (which are titanium, could not have been melted by the fire, and weigh six tons each) connected to the wings? Did those also neatly fold into the plane as you've claimed? Also, where did the plane go? They proved in the movie that it's scientifically impossible for jet fuel to vaporize titanium, let alone an entire plane. (And that it would have burned off immediately upon impact.) They also show that the engine found at the scene (which was the only part of the airplane remaining) was an engine from a US Air Force A3 Sky Warrior.

Seriously, did you plug your ears and cover your eyes for 90% of the movie?

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
These really don't look like bombs exploding to me, but a lot more like the obvoius air pressure created while the building is folding in like an accordion. 

Take a look at the video again. Why would we see one or two windows randomly pop out far below the demolition wave? All the air pressure in the building was channeled directly to those one or two windows?

Also, the Popular Mechanics article is a disgrace. I like how it uses the blurriest images it can find to represent the 9/11 skeptics, and then provides almost no visual evidence to defend the official story (except for that suspicious photo of the window section looking rather uncharred) and quotes official sources for its evidence like, for example, THE PENTAGON.

Have you read the Popular Mechanics article?  Are you dismissing the eyewitnesses of the plane?  The rescue worker who said that there absolutely was plane wreckage at the site and that she had personally held in her hands pieces of crew uniforms? 
I watched the movie, have you looked at any sources other than those views already corroborate your own?  From what I've seen and read, I feel that the official story has a lot more to back it up.  Are there holes, and incomplete information?  Yeah, but the holes in the conspiracy theory are beyond credibility.  Will I believe that the government can lie?  Of course.  But there is a history here before the attacks and a history afterwards that would mean the entire world (except gullible American citizens) would have to be in on the cover-up, including the countless people who were in the vicinity of the attacks that day.   

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 09:55:18 PM
Are you dismissing the eyewitnesses of the plane?  The rescue worker who said that there absolutely was plane wreckage at the site and that she had personally held in her hands pieces of crew uniforms?

Yeah, that's really not enough evidence. How about a video of the plane crashing into the pentagon? That would be nice. And it's simple. And, as we know, videos were made, and everything was recorded.

It's a little absurd that our arguing consists of "your theory has more holes than my theory," as if the official story with, say 40% credibility is superior to one cherry-picked counter-theory with 30% credibility. The point is that huge and crucial parts of the official story are proven to be lies. Are you still going to cling onto the small pieces which haven't yet been demolished?

yeah jigsaw--ARE YOU REALLY GONNA NOT BELIEVE WHAT JEREMY BLACKMAN BELIEVES IN?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 25, 2006, 10:14:27 PM

Quote from: jigzaw on February 25, 2006, 09:55:18 PM
Are you dismissing the eyewitnesses of the plane?  The rescue worker who said that there absolutely was plane wreckage at the site and that she had personally held in her hands pieces of crew uniforms?

Yeah, that's really not enough evidence. How about a video of the plane crashing into the pentagon? That would be nice. And it's simple. And, as we know, videos were made, and everything was recorded.

Plus, the rescue worker's claim that she "personally held in her hands pieces of crew uniforms" is incompatible even with the official story, which states that the plane was incinerated.

And why did the only footage available of the Pentagon collision show no sign whatsoever of a plane?!

Why did the footage also show no sign of a missile?

And, by the way, which is it?  Some of you guys have "proven" that it was a missile, and some have "proven" that it was a plane, but a different plane than the one that was hijacked.  The footage doesn't show that different plane either. 

Oh, and where's the plane that was hijacked?  The one Barbara Olson called from, that countless witnesses watched cirlcing D.C. at a very low altitude.  Where are those people if they didn't crash?  Oh, that's right, the underground lab.  The black oil.  Or, they were all loaded on to Flight 93 and shot down in the field, oh sorry, you guys don't think there was a plane in the field.  Oh well.

i think their aim was merely to show that there are quite a few holes in the official story and that it doesn't seem to have happened the way the government says it did, not to prove exactly how it did happen.

Quote from: jigzaw on February 26, 2006, 12:04:31 PM
Why did the footage also show no sign of a missile? And, by the way, which is it?  Some of you guys have "proven" that it was a missile, and some have "proven" that it was a plane, but a different plane than the one that was hijacked.  The footage doesn't show that different plane either. 

Remember, the "footage" consisted of only five selected frames; why would they include a clear view of the missile/different plane if the point was to make people think it was the commercial airplane?

Quote from: xerxes on February 26, 2006, 02:47:30 PM
i think their aim was merely to show that there are quite a few holes in the official story and that it doesn't seem to have happened the way the government says it did, not to prove exactly how it did happen.

Exactly. The bullshit factor and the possibility of government involvement go hand-in-hand. Why would the government be so secretive (blocking investiations, etc.) unless they had something to hide?

Like I said before, the point is not to make a bunch of allegations, but to demand answers for these many, many unanswered questions. And I see nothing wrong with that.

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.

I think the movie points out that they really didn't do a good job of covering this up just like everything else. Did you watch it?

Yes I've watched it.  And if the majority of the world believes that the towers were taken down by terrorists, than it means the administration did a hell of  good job of covering it up.  In fact they did such a good job, that we all watched them in action on live TV  without realizing it. Not only that, but they got Osama Bin laden to take the wrap for it. Unless of course that wasn't Osama, but a lookalike. haha come on. Our government, it's being run by assholes. It is not being run by Lex Luthor. This "documentary" isn't even accepted by the 9/11 truth Movement.

that documentary was as fun as reading richard belzer's book "JFK, UFO, and Elvis" or whatever that I purchased all those years ago.  I could not really challenge the documentary 'cause I don't know enough about structural engineering and explosives to understand the behavior of planes and buildings and bombs and missles, but I also could not challenge the counter-theorists' claims in the popular mechanics and that MIT guy that I talked to yesterday who claimed that planes and buildings and bombs and missles would behave entirely differently under the same circumstances.  I had the same reaction when I read an article by this guy who denied the link between HIV and AIDS and made a very convincing argument against the big pharmaceuticals that were making billions for linking HIV to AIDS.
Do you need this documentary to believe that the White House is evilly incompetent and greedy?  Do you need to deny the link between HIV and AIDS to recognize that pharaceuticals are doing evil things in Africa in the name of science?  I do not see how a missle that hit the Pentagon can really make the White House that much more evil.  All the video did was trying to one-dimensionalize my anger.  The government is unjust in a variety of ways through a variety of issues, bombing its own military complex is amongst the least of my concerns.  Americans have been aggressively and passive-aggressively brutalizing people around the world for decades, I don't see how it needs a republican missle to galvanize the troops to go out there to spread the evil.  Whether or not these greedy assholes are incompetent or evil or both, the result is the same.  Whatever face they put on, whoever they are, the people have always been suffering.  I hope you who have watched and passionately debated the contents of the video, are going out right now and fighting against injustice one human at a time.

Quote from: pete on March 03, 2006, 12:59:52 PM
I do not see how a missle that hit the Pentagon can really make the White House that much more evil.

What about the... umm... twin towers?

oh I forgot, you believe in that too.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Quote from: shinwa on March 03, 2006, 01:14:07 PM
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

One big flaw in that interpretation. The jet fuel burned off immediately upon impact, as we can see from the huge explosion that shot out the other side. The article for some reason assumes that the jet fuel stayed there, in the tower, undepleted from the initial explosion, to continuosly fuel the fire:

Quotethe WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available.

That's absurd.

There's also a more basic problem with the article. It presupposes that the official story of the fire causing the building to collapse is true and looks for evidence to support it, speculating here and there about what exactly the conditions might have been to cause it to happen in that way.

Also, why are people still bringing up the Popular Mechanics article? It's a straw man argument. And most of their "evidence" comes directly from official sources like the Pentagon. And they didn't even do their own work... they borrowed the theories (and even the images) from popular anti-skeptic websites. It's like they say the missile/pod theory (which I still have some doubts about) might not be true, therefore everything the skeptics tell you is a lie.

Speaking of the missile/tower theory, I read a pretty convincing refutation of it, but looking at the video of the impact it seems once again credible. Doesn't it look like a missile is being fired from this airplane? They say it was simply a flash or a reflection of light, but how can that happen from every angle? (The site I linked to a whle ago no longer has those images, which were better, so I looked elsewhere for these.)

(https://xixax.com/files/jb/missile1.gif)(https://xixax.com/files/jb/missile2.gif)

And in the first image, isn't that the missile pod that was apparently debunked?? (Again with the straw man, because they called into doubt a different image, which is blurry.)

Also, this (http://www.letsroll911.net/images/Splitscreen%20High.wmv) little clip was put together by Dylan Avery (who made Loose Change).

I'm sorry, but it would be completely ridiculous for them to strap a missile to a plane and fly it into the building for all to see. That's just not intelligent. Why would they use a missile? Why not explosives? At least then people wouldn't be able to bear witness to the missiles firing with their flashy animated gifs. 0_o Any body in charge of anything has to KNOW that something like this will undoubtedly be videotaped and played over and over and over  again week after week after week. We saw the second tower hit on live TV for crying out loud. I have a hard time believing that anyone in charge of an attack like this can be that  dumb. We're suppossed to believe that modern day strategist overlooked the idea of slow motion video? Come on. To me, that doesn't look like a missile being fired from the airplane. If I wanted it to look like one, it would. Only because there's activity there. If that were a missle, wouldn't the blast have travelled  towards the plane? Wouldn't there be a very obvious sound? Wouldn't it have went straight through that building and come out the other side?  Wouldn't there be remnants?

Quote
There's also a more basic problem with the article. It presupposes that the official story of the fire causing the building to collapse is true and looks for evidence to support it, speculating here and there about what exactly the conditions might have been to cause it to happen in that way.

Yeah, it would be more than a little irresponsible if they didn't. If for no other reason to see if the claim stands the test of reason.  Avery believes that the official story was false and looks for evidence and all sorts of off the wall suggestions to support that.


Clearly there's a whole lot of wrong with the 9/11 situation, but I don't believe anything, other than this documentary, suggests missiles and so on and so forth.  If we had a government where every branch was cooperative and worked together for the same goals, then maybe I'd believe something similar to this. As of now? No way. It just doesn't add up. It's very dramatic, but it's  not consistent with the politics of the world we live in. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, being conned is not.

Sorry, JB, but that's not a misile.  That's not how they look when they're fired and it would really do no difference to fire a misile 1/100th of a second before the plane hit the building.


The documentary raises some points that have been covered before, but all it does is help discredit it's own theory.  The whole "Therefore it's SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" shit is pretty damn silly, they just took some numbers they found on the periodic table and decided with a few taps of the calculator that they were right... nuff said.  

It's too bad that they have to approach it like this because there are some really interesting facts, but they're not all solid facts and the way theyr'e presented makes the more solid information seem less solid.

Do I believe the government's told us the truth about 9/11? No fucking way
Do I believe it's possible they did the whole thing themselves?  Very unlikely, but I admit it's possible.  

There just needs to be a better presentation of facts and opinions without jumping in with fingers already pointed and conclusions already made.

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.

I was already aware and supportive of the planned detonation theory. However, the missiles-on-the-plane thing is just dumb, especially when those videos are used as evidence. As RK says, they pretty much disprove the theory all by themselves.

Oh...I thought we were talking abou this...loose change (http://gprime.net/video.php/quarters).

Quote from: RegularKarate on March 03, 2006, 04:53:08 PM
 The whole "Therefore it's SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE" shit is pretty damn silly, they just took some numbers they found on the periodic table and decided with a few taps of the calculator that they were right... nuff said.  

Exactly.  Don't you think it woulda been a lot more effective to have some scientist explain all the science stuff? 

Quote from: Ghostboy on March 03, 2006, 04:58:15 PM
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.

Quote from: polkablues on March 03, 2006, 06:55:53 PM

Quote from: Ghostboy on March 03, 2006, 04:58:15 PM
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.

Quote from: shinwa on March 03, 2006, 12:11:33 PM
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.

:bravo:...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 :love:

Quote from: pyramid machine on March 03, 2006, 09:38:25 PM
...there's a sucker born every day....

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

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.

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 (http://www.oilempire.us/pod.html)), 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...

Quote from: pyramid machine on March 03, 2006, 09:38:25 PMthere's a sucker born every day....

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.

To reiterate:

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on March 03, 2006, 10:32:46 PMIf 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.

Quote from: RegularKarate on March 03, 2006, 11:59:48 PMJB, 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.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on March 03, 2006, 10:32:46 PM

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.'

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).

(https://xixax.com/files/jb/frame7.jpg)   (https://xixax.com/files/jb/frame8.jpg)

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:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.questionsquestions.net%2FWTC%2Fpodimages%2Fspiegeltvsequence.jpg&hash=c5f114ceb1d9403a0ac5f03b77f6eda7294bb86f)

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 this (http://www.letsroll911.net/images/Splitscreen%20High.wmv) 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: matt35mm on March 04, 2006, 07:32:56 PM
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?

Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on March 04, 2006, 08:25:56 PMdon'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.

Quote from: RegularKarate on March 04, 2006, 06:53:50 PMthat 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.

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

Quote from: Pubrick on March 04, 2006, 10:00:37 PM
i formally request a summary of the current state of this thread.

Everyone: There's no proof of missiles.
Jeremy Blackman: I know, I'm not saying there is.
Everyone: THERE'S NO PROOF OF MISSILES, IT HURTS YOUR ARGUMENT!
Jeremy Blackman: Again, I'm not saying there is.
Everyone: MISSILES MISSILES MISSILES!
Jeremy Blackman: sigh

Good: Prompting questions, the film
Bad: missiles/pod theory, frame by frame action
Winner: Lindsay Lohan's nipple

Quote from: Hedwig on March 04, 2006, 10:02:42 PM

Quote from: Pubrick on March 04, 2006, 10:00:37 PM
i formally request a summary of the current state of this thread.

Everyone: There's no proof of missiles.
Jeremy Blackman: I know, I'm not saying there is.
Everyone: THERE'S NO PROOF OF MISSILES, IT HURTS YOUR ARGUMENT!
Jeremy Blackman: Again, I'm not saying there is.
Everyone: MISSILES MISSILES MISSILES!
Jeremy Blackman: sigh

I think people are arguing with the movie, not Jeremy Blackman.  Jeremy Blackman may not say MISSILES, but the movie says MISSILES!  So we're talking MISSILES!

Quote from: jigzaw on March 05, 2006, 04:34:12 PM

Quote from: Hedwig on March 04, 2006, 10:02:42 PM

Quote from: Pubrick on March 04, 2006, 10:00:37 PM
i formally request a summary of the current state of this thread.

Everyone: There's no proof of missiles.
Jeremy Blackman: I know, I'm not saying there is.
Everyone: THERE'S NO PROOF OF MISSILES, IT HURTS YOUR ARGUMENT!
Jeremy Blackman: Again, I'm not saying there is.
Everyone: MISSILES MISSILES MISSILES!
Jeremy Blackman: sigh

I think people are arguing with the movie, not Jeremy Blackman.  Jeremy Blackman may not say MISSILES, but the movie says MISSILES!  So we're talking MISSILES!

the movie didn't say anything about missiles

USA Today Article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-27-conspiracies-sept-11_x.htm) about Loose Change and its popularity.  I was interviewed for this article after we got the film screened here, as part of their look into how college students are a major factor in the film's popularity, which is the only reason why I know about the article.  (I don't fucking read USA Today, psh)

They made a grammatical error in quoting you!

But that's not nearly as bad as the girl they quote in the next paragraph. I'm sure that all she had to say about the film was how hip the soundtrack was. It's like reading Fox news.

I watched this film and was intrigued by how logical the explanations were. I then read an online paper from a credible source that argued almost everything the film said and again, I was intrigued by how logical the explanations were. The truth is I really don't know. My opinion to what happened seems less valid because I don't understand sky rise logistics and other technical things.


I prefer Farenheit 9/11. Its actual argument to an opposing history of 911 is less convincing than Loose Change but its portrait of the mindset of many Americans after 911 is fascinating and well done.

I saw this the other day.
I'll have to see this again someday, but I haven't got the time.
anyway this is what I think:
it is painfully obvious that no plane hit the pentagon, as it is obvious that building seven was imploded.
about the twin towers... I just don't know.those windows blowing out make a good argument but it could be anything.
there is also some other obvious bullshit: like them finding the passport of a terrorrist in the rubble and the phone calls from the planes.

I'll probably understand some more about these things a few years from now when I have my degree in civil engineering :yabbse-grin:

Quote from: rustinglass on April 28, 2006, 05:33:00 PM
about the twin towers... I just don't know.those windows blowing out make a good argument but it could be anything.

The idea is that if the windows blowing out were actually the result of the floors pancaking, as we're supposed to believe, then many windows on the same floor should have been blown out at the same time, as the air would been pushed out in all directions.  Localized charges set off throughout the building, however, would have the effect that we see in the video.

Pentagon to Release 9/11 Security Video

By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Tuesday released the first video images of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the military headquarters building and killing 189 people in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The images, recorded by Pentagon security cameras outside the building, were made public in response to a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a public interest group. Some still images from the video had previously been leaked and publicly circulated, but this was the first official release.The airplane is a thin white blur on the video as it slams into the Pentagon at ground level. Almost instantly a white flash and a huge orange fireball appear on the video, followed by a tower of gray-black smoke. One of the videos shows a Pentagon police car driving in the direction of the impact point shortly after the plane hit.

Traveling at an estimated 350 mph, the hijacked American Airlines plane plowed into the southwest side of the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. EDT, shortly after two other hijacked airlines were flown into the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York. The attack set off fires in a portion of the Pentagon and killed 125 people inside, in addition to the 59 passengers and crew and the five men who hijacked the plane at Dulles International Airport.

The Pentagon had previously refused to release the videos, saying they had been provided to the Justice Department as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said families of the victims of the Pentagon attack were not consulted before the videos were released on the Pentagon's Web site.

What a coincidence.  In my history class, we took the AP test last week so we are pretty much done for the year, and we decided to spend the remainder of our days having socratic debates about a variety of topics.  Each student is suppose to present and supervise a socratic debate.  Me and a friend decided to do Loose Change and the role of the American Government in 9/11.  Now, I broadened the topic so that it was more encompassing -- regardless of the validity of Loose Choose, how does the Bush adminstration's response to 9/11 compare to other adminstration's response to disasters (think Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin), and how these disasters may have provided impetus for war.  But what struck me was that there were only about 5 people out of about 25 who didn't watch the video -- my teacher included -- and they were completely irrational.  I continously explained that you have to see the video otherwise it just seems like some ludicrous liberal propogana, and the film's thesis is not that "this is what happened," but rather "this is what might have happened, and we don't have answers."  All the doubters would start off by saying, "well, this is just so stupid.  I'm insulted we're having this debate.  The president would never do this!  Now, I didn't see the video, but..." etc. 

I brought up that the most notable thing, to me anyways, was that we had no surveillance video of the Pentagon crash when clearly several videos exist, and, well, there yah go!

Quote from: JG on May 16, 2006, 03:28:50 PM
I brought up that the most notable thing, to me anyways, was that we had no surveillance video of the Pentagon crash when clearly several videos exist, and, well, there yah go!

we do now.. it was released today.... now you look like a douche.

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:07:48 PM

Quote from: JG on May 16, 2006, 03:28:50 PM
I brought up that the most notable thing, to me anyways, was that we had no surveillance video of the Pentagon crash when clearly several videos exist, and, well, there yah go!

we do now.. it was released today.... now you look like a douche.

nah, JG's only error was citing the lack of footage as being "the most notable thing" when it was really just one suspicious, unanswered question among dozens that remain.

Yeah, take a look at the videos.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

Oops, still no plane.

There is something visible in one frame of each video, but doesn't it seem just a bit too small and narrow to be the nose of that airplane? In fact, isn't this more evidence that a missile was in fact used? Seriously... missile or nose of a plane? I'd say missile.

It's funny how Judicial Watch themselves say it puts rest to the "conspiracy theories." And the BBC just reported (accurately) that the videos don't actually show the airplane.

haha... JB, you crack me up sometimes... you keep reaching for that rainbow.

 :yabbse-thumbdown:

Respond with some substance maybe instead of mocking me?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 16, 2006, 11:18:51 PM
:yabbse-thumbdown:

Respond with some substance maybe instead of mocking me?

c'mon JB, you know I'm fuckin with you.

I think it's just as vague as it was before... it's clearly SOMETHING coming from the sky, but you can't tell what... to say that this MEANS it MUST be a missile is a little silly though, right?
I still haven't heard a good reason for this particular theory either.

i don't understand why judicial watch is satisfied with the select frames that have been released if they originally filed to see all the security camera recordings of the attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras, and Virginia Department of Transportation.

Alright... the object in question...

(https://xixax.com/files/jb/pentagonobject1.jpg)
(https://xixax.com/files/jb/pentagonobject2.jpg)

I can't say it's a missile, but I can say it's there's a strong possibility that it's a missile, based on the earlier evidence we've seen. I can say it's definitely not the nose of an airplane. There is no way anyone can say that object is the nose of an airplane.

see... I don't understand how you can KNOW it's not a plane... explain to me how it's not a plane and why the government would feel it was necessary to pull a switcheroo like that when it would have been just as easy to just fly the plane into the pentagon...

I'm not saying you're wrong either, JB.. understand that.

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:40:27 PM
see... I don't understand how you can KNOW it's not a plane... explain to me how it's not a plane

Because that object in no way resembles a plane, and there has been absolutely no other evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:40:27 PMand why the government would feel it was necessary to pull a switcheroo like that when it would have been just as easy to just fly the plane into the pentagon...

Do I need to solve the entire mystery before any of the evidence can be considered?

It's got to be easier to shoot a missile at the pentagon than to fly a plane into it. Why not just make it easier and faster if they can get away with it (which they have)... And why would they feel the need to shoot a missile at the pentagon? Well, it's part of the theater. We saw planes hit WTC, no need to show another one.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 16, 2006, 11:49:14 PM

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:40:27 PM
see... I don't understand how you can KNOW it's not a plane... explain to me how it's not a plane

Because that object in no way resembles a plane, and there has been absolutely no other evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:40:27 PMand why the government would feel it was necessary to pull a switcheroo like that when it would have been just as easy to just fly the plane into the pentagon...

Do I need to solve the entire mystery before any of the evidence can be considered?

It's got to be easier to shoot a missile at the pentagon than to fly a plane into it. Why not just make it easier and faster if they can get away with it (which they have)... And why would they feel the need to shoot a missile at the pentagon? Well, it's part of the theater. We saw planes hit WTC, no need to show another one.

See, I think it in no way resembles ANYTHING.

I think they are risking WAY too much by firing a missile into the pentagon... anyone could have recorded it... it was just luck that they didn't.

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:59:00 PM
anyone could have recorded it... it was just luck that they didn't.

But they did... there's a ton of security camera footage of the impact from many different angles.  This just happens to be the tiny little inconclusive-of-anything bit that they've allowed the public to see.

I'd just like to know... we can see the shadow of the object on the ground pretty good there; any frames that show some wing shadows?

just to double clarify here... I'm not saying that it's definitely a plane... I'm just saying it's still as vague as it ever was.

Quote from: Hedwig on May 16, 2006, 11:12:35 PM

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 16, 2006, 11:07:48 PM

Quote from: JG on May 16, 2006, 03:28:50 PM
I brought up that the most notable thing, to me anyways, was that we had no surveillance video of the Pentagon crash when clearly several videos exist, and, well, there yah go!

we do now.. it was released today.... now you look like a douche.

nah, JG's only error was citing the lack of footage as being "the most notable thing" when it was really just one suspicious, unanswered question among dozens that remain.

RK, I'm clearly acknowledging the release of the video in the sentence that you quoted.  And at no point did I present Loose Change as fact, I just want to get answers.  People love conspiracy (yes, even if it indicts the president), and sometimes it can go a little far, so truth is all I'm looking for.  In fact, as a follow up I'm bring in the Popular Mechanics article that disputes many of the 9/11 theorist conspiracies.

The thing is:  most people in my class were impressed by the scientific facts the film presented, where I think that was where the movie was the weekest.  There are quite a few things that are certainly irrefutable in the film and his periodic table babble did nothing for me.  Still, though, like JB says, this video is hardly conclusive, and it still makes me quite suspicious that it took them this long to release such a inconsequential clip.  If anything, this could go in Loose Change 3. 

So is this movie getting to be BIG?

I'm asking because alot of non film freak people I work with have been passing it around.  Just seems weird that there's this crazy little conspiracy movie (not that I've seen it) that's going around. 

total911.info (http://www.total911.info) suggests it might be an AGM-86A cruise missile.

(https://xixax.com/files/jb/agm86a.jpg)

Also:

Hugo Chavez is launching an international 9/11 investigation. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm)

Roger Ebert was thinking of you guys when he was reviewing The Da Vinci Code:

"I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane."

so what exactly is the thread title "conspiracy truth" referring to if all the movie does is raise questions?

Quote from: pete on May 18, 2006, 11:07:32 PM
so what exactly is the thread title "conspiracy truth" referring to if all the movie does is raise questions?

I didn't name the thread, but I can say that the movie does a lot more than raise questions. It actually has evidence. And it disproves things. And it draws logical conclusions based on the evidence and the incredibility of the official story.

Not sure if you're doing this, but I'm tired of people rejecting all the evidence if they are not presented with a complete story. Have some patience.

just wondering what exactly the conspiracy truth is referring to.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Here's the best part:

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

I just watched this documentary and a couple of others I found on google video. There's is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was planned by the US Goverment - which I've though ever since it happened. I most say that your country is really fucked up! It's things like this that start a civilwar. Fucking disturbing! It will be really exciting following this case over the next few years.

Quote from: Sigur Rós on September 28, 2006, 04:37:33 PM
I just watched this documentary and a couple of others I found on google video. There's is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was planned by the US Goverment - which I've though ever since it happened. I most say that your country is really fucked up! It's things like this that start a civilwar. Fucking disturbing! It will be really exciting following this case over the next few years.

haha

Our country IS really fucked up, but it seems kind of gullible (the same kind of gullibility that makes people believe everything the government tells them here) to just have "no doubt" in your mind that the government planned the attacks based on some poorly made internet movies.

Also, even if this IS true, there will be no case to follow over the next few years.  Fewer and fewer people will care because nothing will be done about it and eventually it will just seem like the stale leftover ramblings of crazy people (not unlike JFK theorists of today).  I'm not saying the people who support the theories are all crazy, just that unfortunately, the government wins when it comes to things like this.

loose change isn't poorly made.

Quote from: RegularKarate on September 28, 2006, 05:00:57 PM
but it seems kind of gullible (the same kind of gullibility that makes people believe everything the government tells them here) to just have "no doubt" in your mind that the government planned the attacks based on some poorly made internet movies.

But that's not what I did....I'm European we don't buy into anything... :yabbse-smiley:

I think the conspiracy theorists need to tighten up and focus their offensive on the shoddiness of the official report. They need to abandon the "crazy" stuff and focus on things like WTC building 7 and the fact that it was 'pulled', the lack of surveillance footage from the pentagon showing a clean shot of a plane, and the fact that only $3m was spent on the invesitgation - a small fraction of Clintons impeachment. This is the kind of stuff the sceptics can listen to rationally. There are even a handful of victim's relatives on their side.

New information is still slowly surfacing, most recently the NORAD tapes which have a few morsels of information to strengthen the case. I hope there is more before it all does become 'stale ramblings'.

Loose Change is a good kicking off point but it sensationalises a lot of stuff; it's important to look further afield - particularly at some of the news reports from the chaos of the day.

that was reasonable.

the problem is exactly the lack of reasonability on the side of conspiracy nuts, which garners no fans among their opposition. why do they hav to shoot themselves in the foot by outright claiming with utmost conviction that the government was "no doubt" responsible for the attacks? isn't it enough to say that there are, as redlum pointed out, some holes in the official story which have been left unanswered? it isn't for most people, because the nuts are as willing to extrapolate conclusions from the most half-assed theory as the rest of the world is eager to believe similar vague info fed to appease them.

after this generation passes it won't matter if the truth is discovered, sensational or not, it will remain a tragedy of reasonable people with worthy theories being drowned by the hype. young people are too excitable to tone down and people who have moved on are too busy partaking in the next cover up to care.

Quote from: Pubrick on September 29, 2006, 10:44:31 AM
that was reasonable.

the problem is exactly the lack of reasonability on the side of conspiracy nuts, which garners no fans among their opposition. why do they hav to shoot themselves in the foot by outright claiming with utmost conviction that the government was "no doubt" responsible for the attacks?

Yeah, I agree. It would have been much more powerfull if they removed the whole "well if the planes didn't knock down the towers, what did?". Also what the fuck was all that about United 93 landing in Cleveland and the passengers taken to some NASA-building...that part really lacked some arguments - and what the fuck are they suggesting - that they were taken to space  :yabbse-smiley: My point is that they could easily cut away 50% of the evidence plus stop drawing conclusion about something that for most people are almost impossible to believe and that could make the case much stronger.

Anyway it says on their homepage that they are going to make a new documentary on this and the end of the year. Let's hope it will be better and without fox news-effects (fancy music and sarcastic remarks).

I'm not as bothered by the open ends as you guys are. Loose Change makes a lot of semisolid suggestions (like the bin Laden thing and what Sigur said) if only to guess how the holes might be filled, but I don't think they're conclusions, and I don't think they're presented as such. I'm okay with suggestions.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 01, 2006, 06:05:45 PM
I'm not as bothered by the open ends as you guys are. Loose Change makes a lot of semisolid suggestions (like the bin Laden thing and what Sigur said) if only to guess how the holes might be filled, but I don't think they're conclusions, and I don't think they're presented as such. I'm okay with suggestions.

It's been a while since I watched it, but I think they're TOTALLY presented as conclusions.  If they were merely suggestions, then why not some other options and why say it in a way that's like "We're blowing your MIND with the TRUTH!"?

I think you're right; I think much of the speculation is presented as conclusion, which is really the weak point of the filmmaking.  These guys fall face-first into the trap of "it can't have happened this way, therefore it MUST have happened THIS way," when it would be much more effective to say, "It can't have happened this way, so here's some other possibilities."  The big problem this opens up for them, and I've seen this in a lot of anti-Loose Change articles, is that it opens the door for critics to swing away at the wild speculation, ignoring all of the film's valid questions regarding the official story.

I haven't looked at the movie lately, but I swear there are segments where several different possibilities are suggested for the same question. If they are presented as conclusions, I certainly agree that they shouldn't be. I didn't interpret them as such. Maybe I was skeptical enough that it didn't stick.

But where the evidence is strong enough to conclude things, I don't have a problem with conclusions. It's often necessary.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 08, 2006, 02:57:04 AM
I haven't looked at the movie lately, but I swear there are segments where several different possibilities are suggested for the same question. If they are presented as conclusions, I certainly agree that they shouldn't be. I didn't interpret them as such. Maybe I was skeptical enough that it didn't stick.

But where the evidence is strong enough to conclude things, I don't have a problem with conclusions. It's often necessary.

MISSILES!

Quote from: picolas on January 04, 2007, 04:54:02 AM
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

that is pretty interesting. All that stuff from the American Free Press is pretty crazy. Its been months since i watched Loose Change and I've seen Alex Jones' Terrorstorm since then and I'm not buying into the government planning the whole thing. Like Bush says on that episode of South Park:

"Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9-11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever."

The crazy intricacies of a government cover-up combined with the Bush administrations constant screw-ups make the idea of a secret plot not very plausible.

But I still believe there are a ton of questions that need to be answered about that day and the lack of funding and general interest into the overall investigation is pitiful. 

Quote from: squints on January 04, 2007, 03:11:47 PM
The crazy intricacies of a government cover-up combined with the Bush administrations constant screw-ups make the idea of a secret plot not very plausible.

It does sync up pretty well, doesn't it?  If they come across to us as clumsy, then when anything calculated happens, they're not suspected.

david lynch watches part of loose change

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYYN7QhcKs

Quote from: Walrus on January 10, 2007, 10:16:26 PM

Quote from: squints on January 04, 2007, 03:11:47 PM
The crazy intricacies of a government cover-up combined with the Bush administrations constant screw-ups make the idea of a secret plot not very plausible.

It does sync up pretty well, doesn't it?  If they come across to us as clumsy, then when anything calculated happens, they're not suspected.

How has the Bush administration "screwed up"? Everything seems to be going as planned.

well at least in reference to public relations...you could say they've royally f*cked up

I'd say that they fucked up with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  In other words: they haven't been able to convince people that they didn't fuck that up.

They did do a pretty good job of getting most people to forget about it, though.

Public perception doesn't mean much if they can still get away with it.

chomsky on all this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=u1L3O1_-ZoI)

On Real Time with Bill Maher one time, Richard Clarke said it best, "All these conspiracy theorists have two basic problems. One is that they believe the government is competent and two is that they believe the government can keep a secret."

so seriously, who still believes that it's an inside job?

upon watching the movie ill admit i did start to believe.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthecia.com.au%2Freviews%2Fp%2Fimages%2Fpeter-pan-2004-9.jpg&hash=85a709fdef2a6d62c9bccf14a2c3af5f01f4d8e8)

..then i watched another doc that had logical explanations for 90% of it. i dont think it was an inside job, but who knows.

and what richard clarke said doesnt really stand for shit.

Quote from: brockly on February 09, 2008, 02:32:39 AM
and what richard clarke said doesnt really stand for shit.

It stands for as much as general comment can. Clarke doesn't explain the nature of conspiracies, but he does address a part of conspiracies theories that do go overlooked. Noam Chomsky also questioned the ability for the government to keep a plot this big a secret. While what Clarke said may not be relevant to every situation of conspiracy, it does have meaning to this one.

i'm not sure what i think anymore. if they'd release the footage of the pentagon i'd feel better about the whole thing.

First of all, we need to stop believing that the Bush administration is incompetent. That quote from South Park is pretty ignorant and reflects how well the incompetence myth has worked. Would the Bush administration be incompetent if Bush was running it? Sure. Is he running it? No. Bush has worked as a perfect figurehead in this way. Someone who probably can't accurately pronounce "conspiracy" surely can't carry one out, right? Right...

Iraq is a great example of faux-incompetence. The idea that Iraq was planned chaos is an increasingly mainstream view, and one that is supported by all the evidence. (As Randi Rhodes likes to say, in chaos they can steal.) Read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, or listen to some of her interviews. We've learned since the invasion that the Bush administration was warned about what they were doing and told explicitly what would happen. You don't think they expected it? Much of the neocon vision, for example, has been realized. There's been some unexpected resistance to the oil "sharing" agreement, but that's about it. Once the violence has ended, if it ever does, they will still have their military bases and Paul Bremer's corporate paradise, not to mention the "long-term cooperation agreement" that the Bush administration is now independently negotiating with the Iraqi "government." They also hope that all this insane war spending (and our current debt of 9 trillion dollars) will eventually lead to the complete dismantling of all public institutions and the privatization of everything. The apartheid in the middle east is also clearly in their interest, since it is the source of so much conflict in the world. Katrina is an example not of planned chaos, but of willful neglect followed by complete exploitation. New Orleans has served as a testing ground for martial law, private militaries like Blackwater being allowed to operate domestically and randomly murder people (read Jeremy Scahill's first-hand accounts), comprehensive privatization of public schools, widespread use of low-wage foreign workers, etc.

People who believe the Bush administration is incompetent are the same people who believed Clinton was a peaceful president. Bottom line---there is no evidence of incompetence. This includes 9/11.

It's clear that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions. There's pretty much no debating that at this point. No building in the history of the world has ever fallen at free-fall speed into its own footprint, unless it was taken down in a controlled demolition. And jet fuel burns well below the melting point of steel. Let's say the jet fuel fires which were raging near the tops of the buildings actually were hot enough to melt steel (which they couldn't have been), and they did cause a structural failure. Since the damage is not perfectly even, the top of the building (that is, at and above the failure) would fall toward one side or the other, toppling over or sliding off, possibly taking another chunk of the building with it. But it's physically impossible for a failure at the top of the building to instantly create a universally, flawlessly, evenly distributed and instant structural failure that would cause the entire structure to collapse with perfect symmetry onto its own footprint. In other words, there's simply no other physical explanation. The buildings were demolished.

We don't know exactly what happened at the Pentagon. It could have been a missile, explosives, or a small plane, but it definitely wasn't what they say it was. We don't know exactly what happened in Pennsylvania. Either the plane was shot down or there was no plane. We can say that the official story is a lie.

Look at the history of inside jobs, false flag operations, and the like, including the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, and so many others which are uncontroversially accepted as part of history. The government (alongside industry) has done it before, and they will do it again. How is 9/11 magically immune from the same kind of critical thinking? Are we not emotionally prepared to accept that our government is capable of murder and deception? I think we need to get over it.

I don't need to describe the motives. Ask the age-old question "who benefitted," follow the money, etc. etc. PNAC openly begged for "a new Pearl Harbor," for God's sake. This is basic stuff. The Patriot Act, 2-3 wars, massive growth of government power and loss of civil liberties, debt (as I mentioned), permanent military bases in Iraq, continuous conflict, and all the rest. Look into Larry Silverstein, the Bush / bin Laden connection, the documents that were destroyed in WTC7 and that section of the Pentagon. You can look at all these motives, and you can also look at who was in charge of WTC security, all the various financial connections, the intelligence agencies' connections with the supposed hijackers, the history of Al Qaeda's long relationship with CIA.

While the people either in our government or intimately connected with our government executed 9/11 successfuly, it was certainly not perfect, and they definitely did not cover all their tracks. This is the very reason for the explosion of the 9/11 truth movement---it only takes common sense and the most faint understanding of physics to realize that the official story is a bald-faced lie. The obviousness of it all is almost insulting.

While we were shocked into submission that day, all it took (to mix metaphors) was throwing some red meat into the media echo chamber. The official story got repeated enough that it became truth. Note, for example, that the media (including Tom Brokaw and other mainstream anchors) were talking about bombs and explosions in the buildings and the collapse of the towers being similar to controlled demolitions until the official reinterpretation was fed to them.

Since the government has obviously covered up the truth about 9/11, that suggests a pretty high level of involvement and complicity, don't you think?

I don't know what exactly is "the official story", since even the officials are making different claims.  it seems obvious that Bush was warned but didn't do much, just as he's been warned about everything else (Katrina, the war, the scandal...etc.) and couldn't properly react.  That seemed like incompetence to me.  He always knew that there would be bodies to insulate him from ever being linked, as his powerful friends all knew.  To extrapolate such an elaborate theory from such a simple fact seemed like a stretch.  It seemed like circular logic - "because the administration benefited from a tragedy therefore they must've triggered it because they clearly benefited from it" - your hypothesis for the motivation is the same as your conclusion, which is not very convincing to people outside your belief.

seeing folks benefiting from incompetence still doesn't convince me of their competence.  see an apathetic government also doesn't convince me that it has orchestrated the problems that it can be apathetic towards.  what I mean is, like Chomsky and others have pointed out, totalitarian regimes everywhere in the world have benefited from 9/11, it still doesn't provide enough evidence for a motive.  it would be the same logic as blaming insurance companies for every tragedy ever just because they benefit from every tragedy ever.  it is not a stretch for crooks who've set up a corrupted system to further exploit it, but for them to completely dismantle their game in order to profit from something they were planning to profit from sooner or later, makes no sense.  I think it's far scarier to consider just how corrupt the system is that it can reap from an unexpected terrorist attack, then to think that it takes a break from its apathy to risk everything it's been building since after the second world war, just to make money from places that would've made them money anyways.

But as far as the actual execution of the 9/11 is concerned, you can't just say "it's clear that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions. There's pretty much no debating that at this point." and move on, because it is obviously not clear and is still being debated to death.  like we are right now.  Debating that type of structural mechanics has pretty much just pitted hearsay vs. hearsay - this scientist said this, that scientist said that.  I don't understand how you can prove any of those claims, especially made by people who were not there, in an environment that was neither "controlled" nor observed.  lets pretend to take what we've heard seriously - you claim that the steels couldn't possibly melt by the jet fuel, but what about all sorts of electronic equipments, computers, and other highly flammable materials - couldn't their explosions bring the steel to a boiling point?  what about the steel bridge that collapsed when a truck hit it earlier last year in Oakland?  The steel melted and gave away right there and then.

I'm glad you referenced The Gulf of Tonkin as an inside job, because then I don't have to do too much research to tell you how different it is from the government waging a war from a distorted claim and the government blowing up its highest profile buildings.  Firstly, how was it an "inside job" if neither of the boat was actually damaged?  The Gulf of Tonkin is much more apt as a reference to the WMDs, ie. a threat that most of the country didn't buy into, but still allowed the US to do whatever it wanted. 

tragedies are not that hard to exploit.  I lost a grandma in 8th grade and got to skip a month's worth of tests.  politicians in general have been cashing in for centuries, amongst other industries.  however, the controlled demolition assumption exoticizes evil until it is something so inhuman and cartoonish, that it unwittingly absolves the politicians of their current forms of apathy.  it also creates an enemy that is as abstract as "Terror", and siphons good people's wills and abilities to face their actual enemies in a capitalist America today.

You assume that the government is apathetic. That's more than a little absurd, Pete. Are CIA, FBI, and NSA apathetic? What are they doing all day, playing solitaire? Did our little wars in Latin America just happen by accident? Is PNAC apathetic? Is Bilderberg apathetic? If you had all that power, would you not use it? Please.

If the answer to "who benefitted?" doesn't do it for you, if all the financial connections don't do it for you, if the all the whistleblowers don't do it for you, if all the stories of intelligence agents posing as Al Qaeda and don't do it for you, then I don't know what will.

Tonkin doesn't meet your definition of an inside job? You don't have to look very hard to find more. How about the assassinations of MLK & JFK? I can name other "false flag operations" executed or planned by our government and other governments... Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, the Reichstag Fire, Mukden, the USS Maine... and there are many other non-theoretical cases (http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/false%20flag%20operations.htm). Just look at the history of Israel's innumerable "false flag operations," including the "Lavon Affair," which they admitted to in 2005. (And, as Chomsky always says, when Israel is doing it, we're doing it.)

As our friend Chomsky also talks about at length, we have a long history of either hiring terrorists, working in collaboration with terrorists, or actually being the terrorists all around the world. Why not here? As Chomsky says, the only historical thing about 9/11 is its victims.

And, as I said in my last post, since the government has obviously covered up the truth about 9/11, that suggests a pretty high level of involvement and complicity. Does that bother you at all?

I'll concede that this melting point of steel vs. the temperature of jet fuel fires business is a bit sketchy. From what I just read about the bridge collapse in Oakland, it looks like the steel on the highway didn't actually melt, it just warped enough to cause failure, and that's generally what happens to steel in fires—it gets warped long before actual "melting" occurs. However, the steel in the twin towers was most certainly not your average highway steel beam material. Please read this (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-trade-center-building-designers.html), which details how the engineers and architects behind the twin towers specifically designed them to endure a plane crash and the probable ensuing jet fuel fires.

For the sake of argument, let's just pretend I didn't say that. Let's accept, for the moment, the false premise that jet fuel fires could have caused a collapse.  The damage on the towers is not symmetrical, so it's impossible for the structural failure to be symmetrical, and thus it's impossible for the collapse to be symmetrical. The video of the burning towers shows, for example, one face burning/smoldering and very little damage (if any) on the other faces. If the steel structure is damaged where it's burning (which is the official hypothesis), that tower would have toppled over or at least fallen asymmetrically. But no, both towers fell symmetrically at free-fall speed. That's physically impossible, and I can't believe you're ignoring it. Does it take a structural engineer to figure that out? Clearly not.

I plucked a few especially relevant clips from Loose Change Final Cut (and one from the 2nd edition) and put them together in this zip file. Quicktime is required.

loosechangeclips.zip - 95.04MB (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1CSC5NEV)

you assume the government is monolithic, with FBI, CIA, NSA all working efficiently together in harmony, and everything massively coordinated.  it's hard to prove or disprove this because our views are so different - because anything I want to list to prove that they're not coordinated and they're clumsy will almost be certainly refuted as intentional.  I'm thinking about Katrina in particular.
I considered tonkin to be a weak example because it is victimless and is based on a false claim as opposed to a massively coordinated attack.  you don't think anything other than an apathetic government can allow for the existence of something like PNAC and the suffering of millions?  you don't think apathy can cause politicians to enforce certain policies propagated by thinktanks and other corrupt entities all the while still going to bed at night thinking they're just players in a game?  you don't think it takes an apathetic population to allow all of this to happen in their hyper-reality, walk right passed the atrocities in the neighboring counties, and still consider themselves noble?
the terrorist acts you speak of are almost always carried out clumsily, with very clumsy consequences that take other clumsy acts to undo - this has almost been a specialty of the US, but is pretty much true all over the world.  it is just strange that this particular terrorist act somehow does not behave like an ordinary terrorist act, but rather, goes exactly as planned, and leaves the world exactly as the NWO envisioned?
as for all the science stuff, yes, I will need some type of actual authority, not just a fire specialist vs. the designer or the building or whatever, but, just like any crime scene, someone with actual access to the place whom'd performed actual investigation.

didn't mean to get you to repeat yourself if you have already.  I just haven't thought about this documentary or this movement since I first saw it a year ago, and the chomsky video totally reminded me of the ripple it generated on the internet. 

Quote from: pete on February 11, 2008, 12:20:03 PM
you don't think anything other than an apathetic government can allow for the existence of something like PNAC and the suffering of millions?

Allow for the existence of PNAC? People in the government are part of PNAC. Our vice president, for example. John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, is a member. Allow for the suffering of millions? As if all our wars and terrorism abroad have happened accidentally?

Quote from: pete on February 11, 2008, 12:20:03 PMyou don't think apathy can cause politicians to enforce certain policies propagated by thinktanks and other corrupt entities all the while still going to bed at night thinking they're just players in a game?  you don't think it takes an apathetic population to allow all of this to happen in their hyper-reality, walk right passed the atrocities in the neighboring counties, and still consider themselves noble?

I'll agree with you here, definitely. It would be impossible for everyone in the system to know what they're doing. We both know what Chomsky has said about how this works—you don't get to certain positions unless you're willing by nature to play the game. But it's definitely absurd to suggest that the people above them, who are running the game, who have acquired all this power and fight every day to keep it, have not developed scientific methods of control. We know, in fact, that the opposite is true.

Quote from: pete on February 11, 2008, 12:20:03 PMthe terrorist acts you speak of are almost always carried out clumsily, with very clumsy consequences that take other clumsy acts to undo - this has almost been a specialty of the US, but is pretty much true all over the world.  it is just strange that this particular terrorist act somehow does not behave like an ordinary terrorist act, but rather, goes exactly as planned, and leaves the world exactly as the NWO envisioned?

I don't think 9/11 went exactly as planned. Shanksville is probably an example of that. It probably would have been better (from the terrorist perspective) for the controlled demolitions to happen at the same time the planes crashed. They even accidentally informed the media that WTC7 went down nearly an hour before it was demolished, as one of those video clips shows. There's a huge trail of evidence and big obvious frauds, which have basically created the 9/11 truth movement all by themselves. Like I said, some of this is so obvious that it's insulting. I'm sure they were counting on a complicit media, which definitely worked for a while, but things are beginning to unravel (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm).

Quote from: pete on February 11, 2008, 12:20:03 PMbut, just like any crime scene, someone with actual access to the place whom'd performed actual investigation.

I agree, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, it's much too late for an actual forensic investigation, since the remains of the towers were quickly taken away by officials (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html). (Again, all this covering up suggests a level of involvement and complicity. I suppose you'd call it incompetence, though.) So we're mostly stuck with videos and eyewitness accounts, which, while valuable, are not the whole story.

A great clip about 9/11 from Zeitgeist (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9864.0).

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=107CFLEJ