Loose Change 2nd Edition - More 9/11 conspiracy stuff....

[Winslowalrob]

Humans are stupid and make terrible witnesses. Almost any psychologist can attest to that. With that said, as much I would like to believe it was an inside job, it does not appear that way.

[Bonez3]

Humans are stupid and make terrible witnesses. Almost any psychologist can attest to that. With that said, as much I would like to believe it was an inside job, it does not appear that way.

This is my point- real or fake, all we have is 'eye-witness' accounts. But, this film is hard to believe.

[visionary]

Humans are stupid and make terrible witnesses. Almost any psychologist can attest to that. With that said, as much I would like to believe it was an inside job, it does not appear that way.

Wait a second...you would "LIKE TO BELIEVE"...that it was an inside job?

You actually want it to be true that our own government did this to us?

[Kosher Ham]

Seems most of you are pretty cut and dry on this whole thing.

There are several points that the video examines which really add to at least a moderate cover-up.

For example the light poles.

The crash sites.

Another would be the way the twin towers came down.

Perhaps participants in the video are embellishing or even lying. That doesnt change that fact that there should be at least some doubt/questions.

[portisizzle]

Well if you aren't open to watching the video before making a statement, then so be it. I am not trying to change your mind here, just trying to provoke discussion.

I hunkered down and watched the 80 minute documentary. What exactly is your point?

If indeed the U.S. government is so far gone as to stage the killing then what is next?

Do you want to start a revolution?(We need to get a website going here pretty quick.)

Do you want a new President elected?(Understand in advance that a job like this would not be about one political party, the conspirancy would include far too many individuals.)

Do you want to move out of the U.S. before the lockdown? (May I suggest Visby, Sweden. Absolutely perfect.)

I am just missing the point here. And would be interested in what your conclusion is, if in fact, the documentary is 100% certifiable?

[Kilmer17]

The most GLARING piece of omitted evidence is this.

If it WAS a conspiracy, I'd have sat in on the meetings.

Remlik.

[Air Force Cane]

only a truly warped and paranoid individual could believe that video..

so, we can't keep NSA terrorist surveillance secret, we can't keep Abu Ghraib secret, we can't keep Valerie Plame secret, we can't keep fake prisons in Europe secret, we can't keep all of our classified Iraq plans secret...

but for some reasone one of the greatest news events in American history has a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people. yet it stays a secret.

wear tinfoil much? :40oz:

[dfitzo53]

wear tinfoil much?

Actually, that can do wonders for the TV reception.

[Kilmer17]

Here's a great rebuttal, and by an admitted leftwing conspiracy nut to boot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

It's incredibly long, but worth it.

[Baculus]

Basically, it comes down to this for me:

1. Lack of physical evidence of the crash and little explanation by the federal government,

2. Lack of a connection between physical evidence at the scene and flight 77.

3. Lack of body parts and identification

4. Lack of terrorists on the actual flight manifest.

5. Nearly zero footage of the actual flight 77, even though cameras were along the pathway of the flight, and the one shot released by the government shows something other than a civilian flight: http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/01/307128.jpg

In fact, there is less evidence to support the official story then to disapprove it. When it comes down to it, believing the official story is based on faith. Why? Because there is little to no physical evidence to back up the story or to explain WHY it is the true story. In fact, so there so little evidence, it the government story was brought forth in a case of law, it would be difficult to present. I want to 100% believe the government story, but I can’t. I just can’t…I am not a man of faith in these matters.

What is odd is that, in this thread, it is mentioned by some that Loose Change is "95%” or "99%" garbage, and yet, I haven't heard any efforts, except for one short post by Chrom, to show WHY it is garbage. And saying the narration sounded like a "high schooler" doesn't disprove the movie's claims. In fact, the normal response is elementary-level: “That’s stupid” or similar remarks, as if just saying that the movie is “stupid” proves WHY it is stupid just by the remark.

In the past, I have posted, more than once, a list of questions and points that were never explained, and no one took up the challenge to answer my questions. Why? Because most folks who do not believe in any of the "conspiracy theories" spend more time talking about how the theories aren't true instead of actually analyzing them.

I will respond to this post, since at least Chromerics tried to post about contents of the movie:

"Aircrafts are made out of aluminum, the only titanium parts are the engine blades and landing gear."

Yes, but if you Google plane crashes, you will see plane wreckage strewn all over the place. By and large, planes do not disintegrate. And, by and large, plane wrecks are messy affairs.

"Eyewitness accounts are not reliable."

Yes, that is actually one of the supporting facts of the movie. What did people really see hit the Pentagon?

"The sonic boom of the F-15's circling over DC was the sound of "second explosion"

Actually, the fighter planes, traveling from the south of D.C., hadn't arrived at the scene of the accident, at that time, or they probably would have shot down the flight. (Even though there were F-16’s across the water at Andrews A.F.B. that were not scrambled….)

"A plane traveling at 500+ MPH would rip apart a telephone pole made out of low strength aluminum"

Actually, a commercial jet airliner traveling at that speed would not have been able to turn and strike the Pentagon. Especially at that altitude - that is one of the key points: Just the difficulty for that plane to have turned, arced, flew along the ground, and stuck the building.

Have any of you guys actually thought about what would have taken for the supposed terrorist pilot, a man whose trainers said could barely fly, somehow flew a plane in a precision arc and struck the Pentagon? Even the flight controllers thought that a military pilot was flying the aircraft. Could SOMEONE explain to me how this barely skilled pilot was able to achieve this feat? Bueller? Bueller? Here is a photo of how low the plane was supposedly flying:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer/sozen.pentagon.jpg

I am not sure about your point about the telephone poles, since the question was about the light poles along the highway, which were knocked down, and not just telephone poles. Incidentally, where is the footage of the plane crossing over the highway since it was that low?

"the timeline was off"

Actually, it was an accurate timeline - other timelines that have been presented have been off. Don't believe me? Watch it again and compare it to generally accepted real timelines. Did you actually try to compare it to other timelines?

"the phone call from the reporter who was on the plane that crashed into the pentagon was left out."

Tests have verified that it is extremely difficult to make cell phone calls from a plane, starting from as low as 2000 feet. This site has a long study about this subject: http://physics911.net/

"The passengers who died on the plane that hit the pentagon were left out."

To me, this is the BIGGEST question that can be asked...that has to be answered, but some have theories. (And terrible theories at that...) Ironically, when discussing this issue, it must be remembered that:

1. The plane lists never had any of the terrorist’s names on the plane manifest.

2. Body parts were never produced, or at least produced for investigators to verify.

So, yes, a good question is “What happened to the plane’s passengers?” Ask the government that and see if you receive a response.

"The menlting temperature of aluminum is way way below the melt temp of ti, and it is a hell of a lot softer"

Regardless of what made up the majority of the plane's fuselage, the engines, and other parts, were made of titanium. But only fragments of these parts were found...But still, would the entire plane had simple "shredded," as some theories would suggest? And discussing the plane parts does not support the government’s current story. Why? Very simple:

1. The parts in the photograph do not match the size or the type of plane to which those parts were used. An investigator brought the crash scene photographs, of both the landing gear and the engine parts, to the actual parts manufacturer, and it was determine that they were not used for a civilian flight.

2. All the government would have to do is produce some of the wreckage parts, display their serial numbers, and say, “The numbers match – these are the parts.” Oddly enough, this hasn’t been done.

In short, there is not a shred of evidence to tie flight 77 to the crash site, even though the whole FREAKING PLANE was supposed to have wrecked there. And yet, in spite of this odd fact, the current government story is simply accepted. And those who are questioning this are supposed to be the crazy ones??? I find that hard to believe that not a SINGLE PART has been produced to connect flight 77 with the scene of the crime…NOT ONE PART - so which theory is stupid again?

"the picture did not show the entrance way"

Have you seen the picture of the true "entrance way"? It isn't very large at all. In fact, mentioning the entrance way is one of the "supporting" arguments of various theories surrounding the Pentagon - Flight 77 attack. Here it is:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/impact1_477px.jpg

Let me ask anyone this question: Does this appear like a plane crash?

[Baculus]

Kilmer17, actually, the author is discussing about the two subjects that is "thorn in the side" to 9-11 skeptics: The plane "pods" and the "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon" theories. To some 9-11 skeptics, these are red herring theories that are throwing off real investigations into the 9-11 events. So, if you are willing to believe this 9-11 skepticisms of Loose Change, are you willing to listen to the other theories that this "Loose change skeptic" mentioned in his review of Loose Change? In fact, he doesn't even support your theory - he is a 9-11 investigator that isn't one of the "Pod people," which is the nickname for folks who believe in the WTC "pod plane" theory. (I am not one of them...)

[Air Force Cane]

So let me get this straight- you are saying that you believe the United States government launched an assault on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and planned an attack on the White House.

and then, you are STATING you believe that 3,000 Americans were murdered by their own government, that 19 Arabs were somehow hooked into showing up on film boarding the planes (Mohammed Atta is shown going through security on camera).

then you are stating you believe that no one in this vast conspiracy (firefighters, military planners, politicians, FAA personnel) has come forward to show the truth.

then you are stating that the families of all the murdered people don't care about the truth, or are in on the conspiracy as well.

do you know how ridiculous and paranoid you sound to a normal person?

[Skins24]

Yes, but if you Google plane crashes, you will see plane wreckage strewn all over the place. By and large, planes do not disintegrate. And, by and large, plane wrecks are messy affairs.

When you find a plane that has crashed into a building the size, shape, and structure of the Pentagon and had different results...let me know.

When it comes down to it, believing the official story is based on faith. Why? Because there is little to no physical evidence to back up the story or to explain WHY it is the true story. In fact, so there so little evidence, it the government story was brought forth in a case of law, it would be difficult to present. I want to 100% believe the government story, but I can’t. I just can’t…I am not a man of faith in these matters.

:laugh:

There is even less evidence to support any other theories, yet you do.

Why?

You had the FAA, cell phone calls, and a C 130 all looking at and tracking 77. When did they have time to make the switch to another plane?

Where did 77 go?

How did another plane or missile pop out of no where undetected, especially since that missile or whatever had the same wingspan?

On every single hijacked flight cell phone calls were made. On every single flight, they reported a hijacking. How do you explain that? Are all those people (and the terrorists) secret government officials who were willing to die so we can start a war for oil and somehow convinced their families to agree?

As far as the WTC.

If you can show me another skyscraper the size and shape of the Towers in which planes the size of the ones on 9/11 were flown into it and the building fell another way or didn't fall at all, I'd like to see it.

As far as building 7. Most of the pics we see show the side that wasn't facing the Towers.

From the few that do show part of the southside, we can see that it was pretty messed up, especially the lower levels, and there were fires on most of the floors...

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Dan T.]

Baccalus, it is disheartening to even have to attempt to rebut these "theories", but I have to at least try, for these reasons at least.

1. One of the people that died on that flight lived right behind my parents' house, and every time I go over there I look out and see his childrens' playset in the back yard and the deck he had just finished and I grieve for him.

2. I know a person who went in to the Pentagon as a rescuer who saw the effects of that crash and will forever be haunted by it.

3. Many survivors were treated at a hospital where my wife works.

"Plane crashes are messy." How many crashes that you Googled hit a stone wall? This was a messy crash, but the mess was inside the building, penetrating well into the rings of the Pentagon. The stone facade largely disentegrated the plane, the remnants of which blasted on through the outer wall and shredded inner structures of the building as the energy was dispersed.

"not a shred of evidence to tie flight 77 to the crash site" is just false. Photos used in the conspiracy theories conveniently crop out parts of the plane, mostly from the wing, that were left outside the building.

"Have you seen the entryway?" Yes.Photos have shown where the plane hit. But in other photos used to support conspiracy theories the entry is obscurred by smoke or water from firefighting equipment, or shows the building after the upper floors had collapsed down on the entry point.

"The terrorist couldn't have flown along the ground like that." The plane was flying very low in its final approach-- many, many commuters on I-395 witnessed that. The plane clipped light poles in the parking lot and skidded onto the lawn near the helipad before hitting the building. So it wasn't a clean shot into the building, but deadly nonetheless.

That's all I can muster for now. I think that questioning is healthy by and large, but I ask that you give due consideration to all the people affected by such an event before expounding theories that dismiss or minimize their suffering.

[Bonez3]

If anyone, unbiased, can give more info regarding the stock trades leading up...was it that abnormal, or was it really just typical trading... I would appreciate that. To me, that would lend credo to 'a conspiracy'. Now, many people on this chat want to immediately tie OUR GOVERNMENT to the word CONSPIRACY. A conspiracy could have occured without involving our gov't. That's not to far fetched to me.

Anyway, any insight to the very peculiar trading and phone calls made regarding possible premonitions?

[Bonez3]

then you are stating you believe that no one in this vast conspiracy (firefighters, military planners, politicians, FAA personnel) has come forward to show the truth.

then you are stating that the families of all the murdered people don't care about the truth, or are in on the conspiracy as well.

I think many families care very much as demonstrated by the hearings last year. Also, if Richard Clarkes words didn't leave a bad taste in your mouth, than I pity that.

The truth is that there is so much confusion.

[heyholetsgogrant]

I haveen seen anyone talk about this...I didnt watch the Video cause I am still in school....but what about the Surveillance footages from service stations across the way from the Pentagon? Why did the Pentagon only release still photos and not video?

-Grant

[Air Force Cane]

"A conspiracy could have occured without involving our gov't. That's not to far fetched to me."

OMFG...you are even loonier than the other conspiracy fantasists.

to believe what you do, you have to have a conspiracy of thousands of people- all who DO NOT work for the goverment. How EXACTLY could there be a conspiracy involving the FAA, the Department of Defense, the White House/National Security Agency, the US Air Force, Northern Command, NY Police, Transit Police, and the NY Fire Department?!!

but not only that, you are saying you believe that NONE of them know about the conspiracy or are in on it- yet all have been fooled by the most massive attack on the United States in its history.

:doh:

again, do you people realize how literally crazy and nearly treasonous you sound- to blame your own government for the murder of 3,000 American civilians?

[Bonez3]

"A conspiracy could have occured without involving our gov't. That's not to far fetched to me."

OMFG...you are even loonier than the other conspiracy fantasists.

to believe what you do, you have to have a conspiracy of thousands of people- all who DO NOT work for the goverment. How EXACTLY could there be a conspiracy involving the FAA, the Department of Defense, the White House/National Security Agency, the US Air Force, Northern Command, NY Police, Transit Police, and the NY Fire Department?!!

but not only that, you are saying you believe that NONE of them know about the conspiracy or are in on it- yet all have been fooled by the most massive attack on the United States in its history.

:doh:

again, do you people realize how literally crazy and nearly treasonous you sound- to blame your own government for the murder of 3,000 American civilians?

Dude- my post SPECIFICALLY doesn't blame the gov't. TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF, you might see better.

But, bin Laden's involvement makes it a conspiracy. This is semantics but,it was a conspiracy until a party is fully indicted. (I understand al Queadi's claims, don't bother to comment)

Don't twist my words, as my post clearly DOES NOT blame my own gov't. But, explain why Mr. Silverstein timely takes an insurance policy out against the centers and trades go nuts on put stocks for united.

It's credo for a conspiracy. When Jim Garrison (NOT COMPARING KENNEDY'S ASSAINATION TO 9/11, JUST AN ANALOGY) brought his case to DC, it was not necesarily implicating the gov't, but rather set on simply proving a conspiracy. He presented evidence to prove a conspiracy, not who was behind it. I feel certain evidence, not necessarily presented in the film, may warrant credo for a conspiracy. I asked members to give any info they know about these economic matters behind 9/11.

I don't need to be assaulted for being inquisitive.

[hokie4redskins]

OmG, I can't believe what I'm reading.

I bring to you, "The Liberals of America" ladies and gentlemen. Let's give them a big round of applause.

:applause:

:doh:

[Bonez3]

OmG, I can't believe what I'm reading.

I bring to you, "The Liberals of America" ladies and gentlemen. Let's give them a big round of applause.

:applause:

:doh:

I respect your posts alot Hokie, but trust me, my posts have NOTHING to do with the liberal/conservative rhetoric.

Just want to know the truth, it is not any ideology to be inquisitive and not satisified with the entirety of the case as it's presented now.

Disagree, but don't stigmatize or label, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it.

[Baculus]

Just as a few responses, and hopefully I can keep them short so it doesn't become another closed thread. Also, I always add this in my posts about 9-11: Sometimes, in a zeal to prove a virtual, internet point, it is forgotten that real people were involved in these events. And this is always the motivating factor why I continue to ask and observe years after 9-11.

There is even less evidence to support any other theories, yet you do.

I would disagree, but I probably read more of the "conspiracy" websites, books, and watch the movies than you do. It is all relative to what we think we know (and that includes me). But there is a large volume of work that questions the entire 9-11 series of events...a very large volume. Just Google "9-11 conspiracy" and you'll find an amazing array (and variation in quality) of websites surrounding this issue. You should not presume to know all there is to know, or has been presented, regarding these events. Heck, I have been researching for a while and keeping finding new details.

You had the FAA, cell phone calls, and a C 130 all looking at and tracking 77. When did they have time to make the switch to another plane?

Ironically, you asked questions that many skeptics about 9-11 ask: If we had so much tracking on flight 77, HOW did it even reach the Pentagon without being intercepted, diverted, or shot down? How did that happen? And this is the reason why some folks feel that the entire" missile hit the Pentagon" theories are red herrings, but the exact points that you just mentioned are valid: If we had so much tracking on these aircraft, how could our response had been so poor?

BUT, regarding your question, do most people that there was a radar gap in the tracking of flight 77? Flight 77 completely disappeared from radar for at least 30 minutes, and its transponder was missing. Where could have any presumed or theorized switch have happened? Here you have it: http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/flight_77.htm

On every single hijacked flight cell phone calls were made. On every single flight, they reported a hijacking. How do you explain that? Are all those people (and the terrorists) secret government officials who were willing to die so we can start a war for oil and somehow convinced their families to agree?

Also, as I posted earlier, the website, http://www.physics911.net/, has demonstrated, at least in their tests, that cell phone calls are very difficult at altitudes at least 2000 feet and up. If a grandiose conspiracy to "create" the calls were created, then the "cell phone" conversations, at least some of them, didn't happen. I'd like to hear counter-claims if these altitude - cell phone tests are flawed.

Regarding the passengers, once again, basically, the thinking is that if certain people were willing to murder thousands in New York, then they are willing to murder passengers on these flights. After all, as some have proposed, the federal government has shown itself willing to kill its own citizens. Case in point, once again: Operation Northwoods. Once again, this is part of the theory that some 9-11 folks feel is a red herring - after all, who want to, or would, believe a theory that involves a government killing its own citizens?

I am not aware of any larger planes ever hitting a skyscraper (other than the plane that hit the Empire State Building early in the 20th century) - it was basically a first. But, what was also a first were buildings collapsing from a fire. This unto itself is an entire debate regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Regarding WTC 7, even the damage from the shot you showed wasn't enough for a building collapsed. After all, next to the Twin Towers were several buildings that were even more damaged then WTC 7. But where those buildings pulled? No. (Incidentally, it was even remarked even by Silverstein, controller of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers, that the building was "pulled," which you can even see the crown-collapse from the "demolition." In short, the building did not collapse, and if that is the case, how did they plant the explosives so quickly?

Dan T., it is rarely easy to talk about 9-11 in a subjective manner because, no matter how you slice it, a lot of people died. I don't need a reminder on this - that is why it is still at the top of my mind. That cannot be denied any fashion, nor is that the point of my posts.

"not a shred of evidence to tie flight 77 to the crash site" is just false. Photos used in the conspiracy theories conveniently crop out parts of the plane, mostly from the wing, that were left outside the building.

Actually, the "conspiracy" photos do show the wreckage that was present, in and around the Pentagon, to demonstrate how the small pieces that were produced. I don't think the issue, with that particular theory, is about whether or not something hit it, but what hit the Pentagon. And no one has said there wasn’t any wreckage – in fact, part of the questioning is in regards to why this wreckage hasn’t been connected with fight 77.

The plane was flying very low in its final approach-- many, many commuters on I-395 witnessed that. The plane clipped light poles in the parking lot and skidded onto the lawn near the helipad before hitting the building. So it wasn't a clean shot into the building, but deadly nonetheless.

No, the plane did not skid anywhere on the Pentagon's lawn. Where did you hear or see this? There is zero evidence of such a skid - here is a photo of the Pentagon shortly after impact (and before the top stories were pulled or collapsed):

http://www.911inplanesite.com/images2005/01-pentagon.jpg

Do you see any skid marks in front of the Pentagon?

Also, another shot with a mockup of the plane and the distance it was flying before impact: http://www.david-sadler.org/image/9-11/planes/flt77pent/purdue1_sim_sm.jpg

I am sure Mr. Incompetent pilot had no trouble flying this plane at this distance while traveling at 450 MPH.

BTW, some of the witness said they saw a plane that was definitely not a jet airliner. But those accounts have been largely ignored.

Now, here is something that as released by the Pentagon:

http://www.apfn.org/images/pentagon-9-11.gif

Does the plane in the first .gif, before impact, look like a 757 plane?

Ok, this is getting long. Once again, I do believe all of the 9-11 theories, but some viable questions are posed, and even though a lot of us believe we have an idea of the events of 9-11, we do not. And that is what bothers me.

But don’t presume I believe it all, either the government’s story or the 9-11 theories. I don’t. But I don’t believe in a lot of what we’ve been told.

[Baculus]

9-11 theories have nothing to do with Liberalism. Some of the most common information are found on sites that are considered Right-Wing, along with Waco conspiracies. And, Air Force Cane, questioning, even accusing the government of committing hideous acts, is part of a free society. But, in closed societies and dictatorships, such accusations are considered treasonous: What are you trying to say?

Incidentally, if, by some crazed chance the government was involved in such a terrible scheme, it probably wouldn't take as many people as you think to pull such an event off. After all, in the morning of 9-11, there was a military exercise - do many of us know that fact? And did we know that part of that morning's anti-terrorist exercises involved planes being flown into buildings? If that fact has been kept hidden from most of us, you can most certainly believe that a much deeper conspiracy could be kept from us.

We shouldn't presume that we know a lot about what happens "behind the scenes." Conspiracies are kept from us all the time, and we never know it.

[Air Force Cane]

here is a question for you tin foil hat crew:

if what you are saying is correct- how do you explain all the liberals in Congress going along with the conspiracy?

maybe I was dreaming, but wasn't there an ENTIRE 9/11 COMMISSION which spent years looking into the events of that day?

but I guess they are in on the conspiracy also.

you shame the memory of those who died by claiming this bs..

[hokie4redskins]

I'm not saying there aren't questions left to be answered regarding not just the plane that hit the Pentagon, but all of them. Certainly there are.

BUT, this thread is referring to the worst attack in our history and insinuating that this conspiracy of epic proportions was orchestrated by our own government.

Now, the majority of the people supporting this absurd claim are leaning just "slightly" to the left. I'm calling it how I see it, plain and simple.

That being said, there are plenty of things I still wonder about regarding 9/11, but let's be realistic here people. We're living in the information age where data gets transmitted from one end of the Earth to the other in a split second. We live in a world where the news media are a ravenous pack of hyenas that cream themselves by breaking stories that compromise the interests of the very state giving them shelter and security. A conspiracy like the film claims would not have been kept secret for more than 10 minutes after the towers fell before it got sniffed out. This is the reality. Now, if you want to entertain these pipe dreams, that's your business. I reserve the right, however, to call BS when, where, and by whom as I deem fit.