9/11 consipracy movie

[Finns14]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change


First here is the link to the movie which is kind of long.


What I hope to get out of this thread is clear arguments as to what the writer/director brings up. Please no flames or bashing or imediatly dissmissing it because you thinks its BS. I think its interesting and it makes you think but please don't corrupt this thread.


(P.S. I suck at spelling)


Edit Long over due update


There is a new updated version of Loose Change, the 2nd Edition:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
It is 20 minutes longer than the first edition.

I also suggest that you watch this new documentary, 911 Eyewitness, which includes footage in which you can see and hear four bombs exploding in the WTC before the collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness
Like Zapruder, by chance this guy had his video camera positioned in the perfect place, which let him capture what happened much better than most TV crews, which were all in the same place.

Physics professor Steven Jones, from Brigham Young University, gave a simple physics lesson on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings a few days ago. Here is the torrent of the 697.1 MB video (very good quality, 2h15):
http://www.911blogger.com/files/BYU_Pro...xplosives_WTC_September_11.avi.torrent
Also on emule:
ed2k://|file|Steven.Jones.2.2006.avi|730957182|ADEA559F8ACAE1C45CBEBBDF6B9400BE|/
The powerpoint presentation from Dr. Steven Jones's recent February 1st seminar is now available for download via his BYU homepage:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
It contains many very interesting slides quoting demolition experts, structural engineers,...
The zip file weighs in at 29MB and includes a powerpoint viewer for those without it.

The documentary "Confronting the Evidence -A call to reopen the 911 investigation" (NOT copyrighted) contains a very thorough analysis of the WTC collapses (from 39:50 on).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9124194186333362123&q=9%2F11+reopen

Everything about the mysterious collapse of WTC7, hit by no plane at all:
http://www.wtc7.net/contents.html
It contained thousands of sensitive SEC files that many corrupt friends of this administration wanted destroyed. How lucky these guys are!

Interesting C-SPAN videos:
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...roduct_video_info&products_id=187857-1
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...roduct_video_info&products_id=187857-2
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...roduct_video_info&products_id=188134-1
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.p...o_info&products_id=186335-1&template=4
Available on emule. Or there for Griffin:
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/index.html

There is that one, too:
C-SPAN- Judicial Watch News Conference with FBI Special Agent Robert Wright
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/idrive/ter053002_judicial.rm
Former FBI counter-terrorism agent Robert Wright claims that the agency inhibited his probes into terrorist groups

Many videos few people know about, there: http://www.911busters.com/
Like:
- 1st International Citizen's Inquiry into 9-11 held in San Francisco March 2004
- DC Emergency Truth Convergence, July, 2005
- 9-11 Awareness Exercise 4th of July '05
- Citizens' Commission on 9/11
- Misc. Audio / Video Evidence Exposing the 9-11 Cover Up
- LA Citizens' 9-11 Grand Jury, Oct. 2004

In 9-11 Perspectives, a Brigadier General who worked in the White House under Eisenhower says that "he realized he was losing control" and that the military-industrial complex "was not going to be in the best hands". Other specialists explain that the creation of the NSC and the CIA meant the creation of a state within the state, without democratic oversight. Absolute power. Corrupts absolutely.

About Popular Mechanics attack against 9-11 independant investigators: the debunking got debunked:
http://911review.com/pm/markup/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
Funny: Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece, is cousins with Michael Chertoff, the famous Secretary of Homeland Security, an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack.
When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter.
911review.com's Mainstream Press Attacks page contains an expose' of connections between the Hearst Corporation -- owner of Popular Mechanics -- and the CIA.

Other interesting documentaries:

Painful Deceptions (reopen911 edition)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful+deceptions

Truth & Lies of 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9%2F11+ruppert

The Great Conspiracy -The.9-11.News.Special.You.Never.Saw
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...813972926262623&q=the+great+conspiracy

search results for "Alex Jones" = 3 video.google pages
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=alex+jones&so=0

A site with up-to-date info about 9/11 research: http://www.911blogger.com/

A site to see clearly through some apparent contradictions of 9/11 researchers (some may well be CIA trying to disinform people and discredit independant researchers; it happened with JFK): http://www.questionsquestions.net/



All the previous info was thanks to Votingisanillusion

 

[Xylitol]

Interesting... im about 15 minutes into it...

 

[Rainsford]

Interesting, but not very good arguments. I'm only 12 minutes in, and I do plan on watching the whole thing, but from what I've seen, it seems clear that the person or people making the video don't know enough about the topic and the questions they raise to really come to any kind of conclusion. It's compelling, unless you know more than they do.

Just as a quick example (taken because it was the last thing discussed in the part I watched, no cherry picking on my part), two questions raised about the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

The first was that the air traffic controller guys thought that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was a military plane because of how it moved on their screens. This sounds pretty good...unless you think about it and realize that what makes airliners look like airliners is the smooth, gentle banks and turns and overall straight flying. This is of course done by the pilots to make passengers more comfortable. Even an airliner is capable of much more extreme movement (as any pilot can tell you), more likely if the pilot wasn't well trained in flying airliners and/or didn't care about passenger comfort (like a terrorist). The air traffic controller statements only suggest it wasn't moving like an airliner, and the explanation for this seems pretty clear. Their statements didn't mean, but were interpreted by the video producers to mean, that the airplane WAS a military aircraft.

The second "problem" they raised is that the light posts near the Pentagon, supposedly knocked down by the airplane before it crashed into the building, looked like they were cleanly ripped out of the ground instead of like they had been hit by an airplane. What sort of alternative theory of "what really happened" might explain this is left unclear, but the suggestion is that it doesn't fit with the official explanation. Unless of course you are aware that light poles are almost all designed with break-away bases so they pose less of a danger to cars if the car hits one. There is enough support to prevent wind from knocking them over, but if a heavy vehicle hits them, they will fall over so as not to cut the vehicle in half. I can certainly see how an airplane hitting them would do that as well.

These are just two of the most obvious examples, and I will watch the rest, but there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The second "problem" they raised is that the light posts near the Pentagon, supposedly knocked down by the airplane before it crashed into the building, looked like they were cleanly ripped out of the ground instead of like they had been hit by an airplane. What sort of alternative theory of "what really happened" might explain this is left unclear, but the suggestion is that it doesn't fit with the official explanation. Unless of course you are aware that light poles are almost all designed with break-away bases so they pose less of a danger to cars if the car hits one. There is enough support to prevent wind from knocking them over, but if a heavy vehicle hits them, they will fall over so as not to cut the vehicle in half. I can certainly see how an airplane hitting them would do that as well.

These are just two of the most obvious examples, and I will watch the rest, but there doesn't seem to be anything here.

I think that the problem was that the light posts were knocked down away from the Pentagon, instead of towards it. If they were knocked down by the plane they would be knocked down facing the Pentagon. I think that's what they were getting at?

 

[Xylitol]

Anything to do with the Skulls N Bones conspiracy in Yale?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The second "problem" they raised is that the light posts near the Pentagon, supposedly knocked down by the airplane before it crashed into the building, looked like they were cleanly ripped out of the ground instead of like they had been hit by an airplane. What sort of alternative theory of "what really happened" might explain this is left unclear, but the suggestion is that it doesn't fit with the official explanation. Unless of course you are aware that light poles are almost all designed with break-away bases so they pose less of a danger to cars if the car hits one. There is enough support to prevent wind from knocking them over, but if a heavy vehicle hits them, they will fall over so as not to cut the vehicle in half. I can certainly see how an airplane hitting them would do that as well.

These are just two of the most obvious examples, and I will watch the rest, but there doesn't seem to be anything here.

I think that the problem was that the light posts were knocked down away from the Pentagon, instead of towards it. If they were knocked down by the plane they would be knocked down facing the Pentagon. I think that's what they were getting at?

That was the other part, but the video didn't seem to show what they were suggesting. And in any case, that is a rather strange "problem" isn't it? Suppose you feel the official explanation is wrong...why would the poles be knocked down away from the Pentagon? Simply casting doubt is not the same thing as offering an alternative explanation.

I'll admit, not everything is as obviously wrong as the two examples I used, but then again, I don't have all the details of the official explanation either.

 

[Rainsford]

Something else that makes me doubt the points this video is trying to make, it relies a LOT on eyewitness stuff. Most of these types of "alternative theories" do the same thing. I don't know how many times the "it looked like a missle" comment was repeated to demonstrate that the plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't really a plane. This video uses "it looked like a cargo plane" at the beginning in much the same way.

Of course as anyone who investigates anything will tell you, eyewitness accounts are among the least useful ways to gather information. Most people aren't very good observers, most do not have enough knowledge to be educated observers, and most instances calling for eyewitnesses are among the most difficult to observe correctly, happening in a split second. This doesn't always mean they are wrong, of course, or that some people aren't good observers, but taking quotes from a few observers as proof of anything is not a great method.

 

[slash196]

Just a question to pose; I had heard that air-traffic control "radar" is not in fact radar, but rather relies on the transponder of the aircraft to know where it's position was. So in theory an aircraft broadcasting a "737" transponder signal would show up as such on air traffic radar, whether or not it actually was. Can someone confirm or deny this?

 

[bamacre]

Interesting movie. But my questions is, exactly how many people would have to be involved in this cover-up? I would think many, many people, and that just doesn't seem logical.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The second "problem" they raised is that the light posts near the Pentagon, supposedly knocked down by the airplane before it crashed into the building, looked like they were cleanly ripped out of the ground instead of like they had been hit by an airplane. What sort of alternative theory of "what really happened" might explain this is left unclear, but the suggestion is that it doesn't fit with the official explanation. Unless of course you are aware that light poles are almost all designed with break-away bases so they pose less of a danger to cars if the car hits one. There is enough support to prevent wind from knocking them over, but if a heavy vehicle hits them, they will fall over so as not to cut the vehicle in half. I can certainly see how an airplane hitting them would do that as well.

These are just two of the most obvious examples, and I will watch the rest, but there doesn't seem to be anything here.

I think that the problem was that the light posts were knocked down away from the Pentagon, instead of towards it. If they were knocked down by the plane they would be knocked down facing the Pentagon. I think that's what they were getting at?

Unless they were blown down by being in the rear view of those plane engines.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: slash196
Just a question to pose; I had heard that air-traffic control "radar" is not in fact radar, but rather relies on the transponder of the aircraft to know where it's position was. So in theory an aircraft broadcasting a "737" transponder signal would show up as such on air traffic radar, whether or not it actually was. Can someone confirm or deny this?

Two types of radars are used.

General FAA traffic radar uses transponders.
The aircraft sends a numeric code back to the radar whihc is then correlated with a database that contains flight info that was previously filed.

Local approach control uses skin paint (actual radar energy returned) along with transponders.

 

[MiniDoom]

You are an idiot if you actually believe this. The government can?t function properly in a hurricane. What makes you think they can fire a missile at the WTC and make it look like a terrorist attack.

 

[Finns14]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
You are an idiot if you actually believe this. The government can?t function properly in a hurricane. What makes you think they can fire a missile at the WTC and make it look like a terrorist attack.

I tend to agree but take your rants else I'm looking for factual arguments.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Interesting movie. But my questions is, exactly how many people would have to be involved in this cover-up? I would think many, many people, and that just doesn't seem logical.

JFK, RFK, MLK.

By the way, there are other documentaries about 9/11: "Truth and lies of 9/11" , "911 Eyewitness" , "Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus" , "9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" , "Confronting the Evidence - A call to reopen the 911 investigation" , "The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never Saw" , " CSpan.9-11.Commission.Report.Results - McKinney" , "2004 - 1St Intl Citizen's Inquiry Into 9-11" , "2004 - LA Citizens' 911 Grand Jury" , "2004 - Citizens' Commission On 9-11" , "CIA.and.WTC.93.Bombing" , ...

 

[Horus]

I have to admit, his analysis of the aircraft pieces from the Pentagon is quite through.

The BIG question is, if it wasn't a 757, what was it?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: bamacre
Interesting movie. But my questions is, exactly how many people would have to be involved in this cover-up? I would think many, many people, and that just doesn't seem logical.

JFK, RFK, MLK.

By the way, there are other documentaries about 9/11: "Truth and lies of 9/11" , "911 Eyewitness" , "Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus" , "9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" , "Confronting the Evidence - A call to reopen the 911 investigation" , "The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never Saw" , " CSpan.9-11.Commission.Report.Results - McKinney" , "2004 - 1St Intl Citizen's Inquiry Into 9-11" , "2004 - LA Citizens' 911 Grand Jury" , "2004 - Citizens' Commission On 9-11" , "CIA.and.WTC.93.Bombing" , ...

And they are all making money off of people like you that want to believe the random spiel they toss out.

 

[MadRat]

Its America, they can do that.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Its America, they can do that.

Yeah, but that mean all the fake information needs to be plastered all over AT P&N.

This is like the 70th thread on this BS.

 

[alchemize]

So if you ask nicely and ask for "logical arguments" that's how you get to repost a propaganda piece for the 97th time?

 

[LazyB]

I watched a few 911 conspiracy video. Some arguments they use can be denied but I have to admit that some of them tickle me.

I think the US goverment should release the video of the Pentagon crash. I don't think it's a national security issue whatsoever and it'll shut off the critic once for all on that "part" of the problem.

Now it's hard for me to beleive some part time, inexperience pilot can guide a huge commercial plane to crash perfectly on a 2-3 floors building without damaging at all the front grass. Well maybe some pilots on this board can confirm if it's an easy or impossible task to do.

I think eyewitness is not trust worthy in most cases but if a lot of them report seeing the same or similar thing, it should be considered.

The propelers made in titanium dissapeared at the impact and did not cause any hole in the wall is pretty strange too.

I talked to my uncle who's an engineer at P&W and a hard opponent to any conspiracy theory and he basicly can't explain this.

For the 2 buildings collapse, I think most of us can't really argue ont this since our knowledge of material and structure is insufficient. We have a few "experts" who explain the collapse but we also have "experts" who refuse to beleive it so we can't say who are more credible.

Yah...and the passport found is disturbing as well if most of the black boxes are destroyed...

I still refuse to beleive in any theory but it'll be cool if all of those "strange" things are uncovered.

Happy holidays

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This is an interesting film. I tend to pooh-pooh conspiracy theories, and I don't know what to make of this one, but frankly the Bush administration is so power-mad and covert that it makes this kind of speculation seem less crazy.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
You are an idiot if you actually believe this. The government can?t function properly in a hurricane. What makes you think they can fire a missile at the WTC and make it look like a terrorist attack.

I would say because the goverment doesnt care about its people. Hence why they killed us off at 911 and didnt give 2 rats asses about us in the face of the hurricane. The facts are there in the video. Main thing I can even believe alot of you when you type that the documentry is bs is just where are the plane parts????? Hell where is the planes from the pentagon and PA??? There is nothing there at all. And did anyone think for a second that maybe the people that planted the bombs and such may have been the actual people on the planes that crashed??? What a way to cover it all up. Cant have a dead person come forward can you?

They function very well when it comes to protecting its own butts or wishes to scare the hell out of us giving us bs answers to keep us scared into giving up our freedoms. Then they all make bank from pointing the finger in the wrong was making war against even more inocent people. War brings them money.

I am inraged when I watch these videos and how the government and its people can do this. And to know they sleep soundly in thier beds at night nowing full well what they have done to human beings and feel no remorse because of money and power to them is more important then other humans lives.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: funboy42

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
You are an idiot if you actually believe this. The government can?t function properly in a hurricane. What makes you think they can fire a missile at the WTC and make it look like a terrorist attack.

I would say because the goverment doesnt care about its people. Hence why they killed us off at 911 and didnt give 2 rats asses about us in the face of the hurricane. The facts are there in the video. Main thing I can even believe alot of you when you type that the documentry is bs is just where are the plane parts????? Hell where is the planes from the pentagon and PA??? There is nothing there at all. And did anyone think for a second that maybe the people that planted the bombs and such may have been the actual people on the planes that crashed??? What a way to cover it all up. Cant have a dead person come forward can you?

They function very well when it comes to protecting its own butts or wishes to scare the hell out of us giving us bs answers to keep us scared into giving up our freedoms. Then they all make bank from pointing the finger in the wrong was making war against even more inocent people. War brings them money.

I am inraged when I watch these videos and how the government and its people can do this. And to know they sleep soundly in thier beds at night nowing full well what they have done to human beings and feel no remorse because of money and power to them is more important then other humans lives.

I think you need another layer of aluminum foil dude.:roll:

Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. - Benjamin Franklin

 

[alchemize]

You know - if Bush wants to be the next great world dictator, he's doing a terrible job at it.

- His "empire building" skills suck - we're spending way more money then we're getting by stealing oil.
- His "keep the population cowed" skills suck. I mean, he perfectly orchestrated 9-11 in 6 months yet hasn't been able to pull off another attack to bring the masses back in line in 5 years
- His "kill off your political enemies" skills suck. Why isn't he bumping off any big names that
are causing him a hard time?
- His "make the media his mouthpiece" skills suck. Short of O'Reilly and Foxnews, he doesn't have much control over the media.
- His "great leader for life" skills suck. Everything points to elections in a couple years.
- His "rig the elections" skills suck. Keeps letting Dems get elected.
- His "create a secret police" skills suck. See NSA hubub.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
You know - if Bush wants to be the next great world dictator, he's doing a terrible job at it.

There are a few good reasons for this. (And, to be clear, I am not coming from the position that this film is authentic, or that President Bush has a Machiavellian scheme to take over the world).

I think President Bush is absolutely committed to projecting US power in new and troubling ways. He clearly subscribes to the PNAC philosophy (even though it has, in my view, been largely discredited by the failure of Operation Iraqi Freedom). He cares much more about this vision than about Americans' civil liberties and personal freedoms, or even about the Constitution as a whole. In this sense, the view that you're mocking is absolutely correct: President Bush is absolutely bent on assuming and abusing powers the Constitution does not cede to the President.

That said, he faces a number of obstacles. He himself is not a particularly bright man, and he is a poor advocate for his own views and beliefs. The PNAC philosophy was dreamt up by a pack of egghead political philosophers with little or no real-world military experience, and it turns out to work rather poorly in an operational environment. Lastly, and most importantly, this is the United States of America. The Constitution creates barriers to an all-out power grab, because the Founding Fathers had the vision and wisdom President Bush lacks.