Loose Change - 9/11 conspiracy truth

[pete]

just wondering what exactly the conspiracy truth is referring to.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[Sigur Rós]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

[picolas]

loose change isn't poorly made.

[Sigur Rós]

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...

[Redlum]

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.

[Pubrick]

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.

[Sigur Rós]

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  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).

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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!"?

[polkablues]

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[picolas]

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

[Reinhold]

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!