Loose Change - 9/11 conspiracy truth

[Jeremy Blackman]

 

Respond with some substance maybe instead of mocking me?

[RegularKarate]

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.

[hedwig]

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Alright... the object in question...




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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

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...

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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

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...

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.

[polkablues]

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?

[RegularKarate]

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.

[JG]

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. 

[killafilm]

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. 

[Jeremy Blackman]

total911.info suggests it might be an AGM-86A cruise missile.



Also:

Hugo Chavez is launching an international 9/11 investigation.

[Gold Trumpet]

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."

[pete]

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

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.