Loose Change - 9/11 conspiracy truth

[jigzaw]

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).   

[hedwig]

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?

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:

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?

[jigzaw]

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. 

[hedwig]

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/

[jigzaw]

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

[hedwig]

I would hardly call that a debunking. 

Why?

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.

[squints]

i don't care for the x-files

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[jigzaw]

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.   

[Jeremy Blackman]

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?

[pete]

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

[hedwig]

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.

[children with angels]

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

[jigzaw]

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.

[xerxes]

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.