Loose Change - 9/11 conspiracy truth

[squints]

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?

[Pubrick]

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.

[squints]

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

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

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.

[matt35mm]

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.

[hedwig]

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.

[©brad]

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

[polkablues]

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.

[hedwig]

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.

[grand theft sparrow]

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.

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.

[hedwig]

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.

[modage]

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.

[hedwig]

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?

[JG]

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?

[modage]

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.