Loose Change: compelling evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories or complete bullshít?

PullMyFinger!

Im halfway through watching this for the second time and while most of it makes for compelling viewing Ive heard it may be sensationalist bullshít in parts.

What Id like to know - from conspiracy theorists around here who know 9/11 inside out - is what they think is true on the documentary and what is pure fiction.

Your thoughts?

Nick_oliveri

OscarBravo posted this site in the other thread which claims to debunk (every quote and claim of ) loose change and is a skeptics viewer guide.

Im staying out of this now because i forsee more snide remarks from all sides which could esculate into personal abuse. And i was made feel like an idiot... . Which i probably deserved for getting into it in the first place.

Those claims are fairly big, and emotions on the subject will be enormous out of respect for the dead on 9/11. I think we should all leave it until it is shown that there is no two ways about it.

The other thread contains a lot of information on this subject.

oscarBravo

It reeks. Read the site Nick has linked. If there's anything in that site you think is factually incorrect, feel free to point it out and I'll debate it with you.

bonkey

PullMyFinger! wrote:

Your thoughts?

Its an enjoyable piece of pulp fiction that is sadly pimped by its authors as being somehow based on reality to a greater degree than (say) a movie like U-571.

jc

A Primal Nut

Whoever believes this should read this page. That stuff about the note in particular is nonsense and destroys any credibility Loose Change could have. Why would the government give away clues?

ttp://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

torinoblue

Embaressing stuff riddled with the same repeated errors that I am not going to argue about again.

I've heard there is a commentary which can be listened side by side with the movie which should be listened to, if you truly can listen to both sides of an argument.

Overall the Sept 11 2001 conspiracy theory makes no sense, in detail it makes evn less sense.

tunaman

Loose change is riddled with errors, which discredits all the real evidence.

Here is a genuine sceptics guide, unlike that other guide already posted, in which the author resorts to nearly every logical fallacy known to man, in a desperate attempt to stop people asking important questions.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

The lack of response from the military that day is even more incriminating, when you realise just how early ATC became aware of each hijacking.

Flight 11 lost contact at 8:13, which was 33 minutes before it hit the WTC.

Flight 77 lost contact at 8:50, a staggering 48 minutes before it was able to fly into unprotected airspace over Washington, and hit the pentagon.

Here is a much better documentary for people who are fairly new to all this, as it shows up the official story for the work of fiction it really is...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623&q=great+conspiracy&hl=en

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Flight 77 lost contact at 8:50, a staggering 48 minutes before it was able to fly into unprotected airspace over Washington, and hit the pentagon.

I'm curious. When did you change your mind about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Jocksereire

More interesting stuff

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/StevenJones_911Revisited/StevenJones_911Revisited.wmv

Call Me Jimmy

A Primal Nut wrote:

Whoever believes this should read this page. That stuff about the note in particular is nonsense and destroys any credibility Loose Change could have. Why would the government give away clues?

ttp://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

ah ye beat me to it, maddox articulates the first thought that came to my mind.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm curious. When did you change your mind about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Only in the last few weeks. The pentagon missile theory never really made sense to me, but from much of the physical evidence it looked like there was no way a 757 could have crashed there.

It looks like you are trying to use this in a desperate attempt to discredit me, but all you have done is prove that I am not narrow minded and entrenched in my views, like so many others...

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

They even went as far as to claim the pilot was Hanjour, who it has been well reported was basically useless. They quickly confiscated numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, which immediately raised questions. Then there was the alleged slip from Rumsfeld, when he mentioned a missile. The 5 frames they released twice actually support the theory it wasn't flight 77.

So why would they actually promote the theory if it was true?

By turning the focus to speculating on what actually hit the pentagon, they have diverted the attention away from all the incriminating facts.

The fact that on sep 10th 2001 the pentagon announced that $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

The fact there was still no fighter jets over Washington nearly 90 minutes after the first plane lost contact.

The fact that the section that was hit was nearly empty and had been newly renovated. The fact that the alleged hijackers fly over the pentagon, then turned around and went completely out of their way to hit this section.

The fact that the pentagon was even hit, is one of the biggest smoking guns of all.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Only in the last few weeks. The pentagon missile theory never really made sense to me, but from much of the physical evidence it looked like there was no way a 757 could have crashed there.

Let me get this entirely clear: there was "physical evidence" that a 757 couldn't possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. On further examination, it seems that that "physical evidence" was either flawed, or didn't exist in the first place. In fact, the more you examine the actual evidence in detail, the more obvious it becomes that a 757 did, indeed, crash into the Pentagon.

Not only did a 757 crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that did so was the hijacked flight 77.

What's interesting about this is that this is precisely the conclusion Occam's Razor would have led us to in the first place. By stripping away all the extraneous theoretical crap - missiles, missing planes and passengers - you arrive at the most straightforward and logical explanation.

Now, let's examine the question of who was flying the plane. Occam's Razor once again tells us that it was Hanjour. But no, the conspiracy theorists have latched on to some circumstantial evidence that suggests he couldn't have done it. So what are we left with? Either a different suicide pilot (obviously part of the elite CIA suicide division) or a remote-controlled commercial airliner.

I'm sticking with Hanjour, thanks.

tunaman wrote:

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing too hard to reply to the rest of this.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

The pentagon missile theory never really made sense to me, but from much of the physical evidence it looked like there was no way a 757 could have crashed there.

So you're finally admitting that what things look like is not a terribly good basis on which to draw a conclusion?

It looks like you are trying to use this in a desperate attempt to discredit me,

And straight away, you prove me wrong, and use a "looks like" argument.

but all you have done is prove that I am not narrow minded and entrenched in my views, like so many others...

No. All he's done is line you up to show that you haven't abandoned the very "looks like" methodology that led you to your false conclusion in the first place, thus suggesting that you see nothing wrong with your methodology despite it leading you to passionately argue for a conclusion you now believe to be utterly incorrect.

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

Riight. Or maybe it only looks that way?

I mean...you've looked at this for some time now. You've insisted from day 1 that all we need to do is OPEN OUR EYES (capitalised an everything) and LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE (also capitalised) and we'd see what you saw. Now you're telling us that you - and many other CT types - were successfully duped. You were hoodwinked, not only into looking at the wrong evidence, but into making fools of yourselves (collectively) for years, spreading fiction.

Meanwhile, gubment agents and Men In Black no doubt giggled helplessly at how they fooled you. Oh how we...err, I mean them....laughed.

Since coming to this realisation, you've discarded many of your beliefs that you ridiculed others for not accepting, and yet accept us to believe that the ones you've held on to and the new ones you've picked up are now the real truth.

No more will teh Men In Black giggle at you. No more will you be duped by gubment disinformation.

Tell me...does this mean you'll now be frightened into silence by the Official Goons (or whoever it is) who have kept Structural Engineers around the glob living in fear for half a decade? Or will they leave you alone? Will they allow you to be the threat that they've refused to allow anyone else to become by speaknig out? Or does the fact that they don't suggest that perhaps...just perhaps...you're still barking up the wrong tree?

Meanwhile, those who've stood opposite you, debunking you, have had a chunk of what they've said against you vindicated. They haven't had to shift their feet at all. They've ignored your derision and your scorn and your insistence that if they only opened their eyes they'd see how ludicrous the very claims that you're now accepting are.

Oh how our position is weakened by your manly display of openmindedness. Truly we are doomed.

By turning the focus to speculating on what actually hit the pentagon, they have diverted the attention away from all the incriminating facts.

They didn't turn the focus. You and you ilk did. As you're now doing again.

After accepting that a belief that you have previously held as gospel is, in fact, a work of the poorest fiction, it is enlightening to see that you don't appear to have re-questioned all of your similar beliefs, but rather cling to the insistence that the gubment is behind it all and looked for a new avenue to blame them.

I mean...seriously...not only are you discarding one conspiracy theory for another, but you're blaming the governemnt for having made you believe the original one!!!

If nothing else, you're admitting that you were misled by the flimsiest of suggestive arguments even when such arguments fly in the face of reason and evidence.

Add this to the already-long-established criticism that basing your arguments of video and pictures and what other people tell you it looks like isn't a terribly effective methodology, and, well, it should be telling you something.

Its still the gubment, right? It couldn't possibly be that your willingness to believe such fiction as the hologram-cloaked Global Predator (or whatever fiction you put your faith in) was capitalised on by someone other than the government who stood to gain?

I mean...its not like the main proponents of conspiracy material are all selling the stuff. Surely it couldn't be as cynical as someone knowing there's a market of gullible types (who think they're smart and objective) who will lap it all up as long as its the government or some Seekrit Society are blamed.

They couldn't possibly have a reason to mislead you. Other than to make money.

Hmmm...maybe they're just a front for the government, and all proceeds from such projects are used to fund the disinformation campaigns.

You can have that one for free.

Maybe you can make a movie out of it, and in a few years time you, rather than Dylan Avery, can be the subject of a thread like this?

Diogenes

Bonkey an exceptional well written response.

tunaman, about this nugget that has us all rolling;

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

What evidence do you have that the US government promoted this piece of nonsense?

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Now, let's examine the question of who was flying the plane. Occam's Razor once again tells us that it was Hanjour. But no, the conspiracy theorists have latched on to some circumstantial evidence that suggests he couldn't have done it. So what are we left with? Either a different suicide pilot (obviously part of the elite CIA suicide division) or a remote-controlled commercial airliner.

I'm sticking with Hanjour, thanks.

Despite the fact that it was widely reported he was an incredibly incompetent pilot...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109115k.jpg

Yeah I suppose it wouldn't have been that hard for a complete novice to have hit the pentagon where he allegedly did... :rolleyes:

So if flight 77 did hit the pentagon, it definitely wasn't flown by Hanjour...

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing too hard to reply to the rest of this.

So the 5 frames released twice by the US government looked like an airliner?

The naming of Hanjour as the pilot, even though he allegedly showed great skill and accuracy in hitting the pentagon, made sense to you?

Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the pentagon was just an innocent mistake?

The confiscation of numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, didn't raise any questions?

Whenever the media talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories they nearly always focus on what hit the pentagon, despite all the other real evidence of the demolition of those three buildings...

oscarBravo

Let's make this real simple.

Who was flying Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon?

Ciaran500

tunaman wrote:

The naming of Hanjour as the pilot, even though he allegedly showed great skill and accuracy in hitting the pentagon, made sense to you?

What great skill and accuracy? Look at the image you posted, thats a huge target.

tunaman wrote:

Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the pentagon was just an innocent mistake?

Its called a Freudian slip and happens all the time. Did the interviewer say missile by any chance?

tunaman wrote:

The confiscation of numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, didn't raise any questions?

It did but TBH its not suprising. Its a top secret military building that has be upgraded recently. They don't want videos of how the building reacts to attacks out in the public.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

So if flight 77 did hit the pentagon, it definitely wasn't flown by Hanjour...

And your'e as definite about this as you were about how flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon up until recently?

So the 5 frames released twice by the US government looked like an airliner?

a) They were released once by the US government. The original "release" was a leak.

b) The only people who needed to see with their own two eyes were the likes of yourself. Most people were willing to accept the other evidence that you have finally come to accept....y'know...stuff like the hundreds of eye-witnesses.

Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the pentagon was just an innocent mistake?

You obviously haven't listened to much of Rummy's public appearances. The man is renknowned for constructing weirdly-phrased, illogical, and often downright nonsensical statements.

I'd have considered it more unlikely that someone could haev gone through everything he's said about 911 and not find something like that.

The confiscation of numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, didn't raise any questions?

Given that its standard practice in an investigation, it shouldn't have done.
The non-release of the tapes by the authorities to the public is also standard practice. It would be illegal to do otherwise.
The (alleged) non-return of the tapes to their owners is the only real issue...but no CTs seem to be willing to actually verify that this is still the case, nor whether or not the owners have requested their tapes be returned. Regardless, the holding of non-evidence for long periods of time is standard fare. Ask Steve Jackson Games.

Whenever the media talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories they nearly always focus on what hit the pentagon,

And you have, of course, some sort of evidence to back this up? Not just a handful of videos you can link to, now, but something to show that you (or someone) has analysed media coverage and actually determined this.

Cause I reckon you're just making it up, personally.

despite all the other real evidence of the demolition of those three buildings...

Real evidence?

Its as real as the evidence that made you think that it was laughable to suggest flight 77 crashed into the pentagon....at best.

jc

Squaddy

I think some of Loose CHange is BS. (There's a new one now, its completely different, but i havent looked at it yet. I was talking to Dylan Avery on myspace he was saying that it could be in the cinema next year.)

You could go all day about Wtc and the pentagon but everyone always seems to forget flight 93.
Can you honestly say a plane crashed there? Look at the damage a plane done to the towers and the pentagon. Even the guy said on the news that "there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the site......"





And what about the towers coming down in free fall speed.

In loose change they talk about the plane not doing any damage at all but then they undo it by saying "and is it a coinsidence that the pentagon was hit in the only section renovated to withstand this type of attack"

Diogenes

Squaddy wrote:

You could go all day about Wtc and the pentagon but everyone always seems to forget flight 93.
Can you honestly say a plane crashed there?

Why yes several unsubstainated photos taken at an unknown time with no point of reference proves it :rolleyes:

Tell me what actually did happen to United 93 and it's passengers?

Look at the damage a plane done to the towers and the pentagon. Even the guy said on the news that "there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the site......"

Why yes a report from a eyewitness taken out of context is all the evidence we need...

And what about the towers coming down in free fall speed.

They didn't. End of discussion. tunaman is reduced to warner bros physics to try and prove that in the other thread.

In loose change they talk about the plane not doing any damage at all but then they undo it by saying "and is it a coinsidence that the pentagon was hit in the only section renovated to withstand this type of attack"

I know isn't it amazing! The one side of the building, I mean c'mon! What are the odds of that happening? Gosh I bet they'd be like 1 in 5?

Ciaran500

Squaddy wrote:

You could go all day about Wtc and the pentagon but everyone always seems to forget flight 93.
Can you honestly say a plane crashed there? Look at the damage a plane done to the towers and the pentagon. Even the guy said on the news that "there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the site......"

LOL

Where did those pics come from? Everyone looks so casual.


Remember the plane crashed at nearly 600mph, the plane would of been ripped to shreds and anything big burried uderground.

Squaddy

Ciaran500 wrote:

LOL

Where did those pics come from? Everyone looks so casual.


Remember the plane crashed at nearly 600mph, the plane would of been ripped to shreds and anything big burried uderground.

Probably, i couldnt care less anymore

Pongo

tunaman wrote:

Loose change is riddled with errors, which discredits all the real evidence.

You're kidding me, right? After all that's been said in the megamerge thread, 633 posts, 10,367 views, after all the arguing to and fro, the insults, the accusations, the banging heads off walls on both sides of the fence... You just throw this out there????? You have GOT to be taking the piss! Seriously, well done, it's been a brilliant wind up, you really had me going there for a while.

Of course, if you're actually serious about all this, may I suggest you go and edit each and everyone of your posts defending and promoting the Loose Change video seeing as you've now had a little think about it and decided it's actually a pile of crap.

tunaman

Ciaran500 wrote:

What great skill and accuracy? Look at the image you posted, thats a huge target.

It would be if the plane dived into the roof of the building, but the reality involved incredible accuracy, flying just a few feet off the ground...

It did but TBH its not suprising. Its a top secret military building that has be upgraded recently. They don't want videos of how the building reacts to attacks out in the public.

Hard to imagine what any real terrorists could gain from seeing how the building would react to a plane hitting hit...

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

I know isn't it amazing! The one side of the building, I mean c'mon! What are the odds of that happening? Gosh I bet they'd be like 1 in 5?

The odds are way higher than that, when you consider dving into the roof would have been the easiest way of hitting the building...

Instead, the alleged terrorists went completely out of their way to hit the newly reinforced and nearly empty section of the building...

The so called surprise attack scared Rumsfeld so much, that even though Cheney knew a plane was heading for the building, he decided to stay in his office in the other side of the building...

That Rumsfeld is quite the gambler, don't you think?

tunaman

Pongo wrote:

Of course, if you're actually serious about all this, may I suggest you go and edit each and everyone of your posts defending and promoting the Loose Change video seeing as you've now had a little think about it and decided it's actually a pile of crap.

You are going to have to point out all these posts, as I don't remember ever promoting loose change...

I may have argued in favour of the demolition of those three buildings, which is included in loose change, but that's about it...

The obvious conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job was also put forward by loose change, so do you still believe the official conspiracy theory?

billy the squid

Pongo wrote:

You're kidding me, right? After all that's been said in the megamerge thread, 633 posts, 10,367 views, after all the arguing to and fro, the insults, the accusations, the banging heads off walls on both sides of the fence... You just throw this out there????? You have GOT to be taking the piss! Seriously, well done, it's been a brilliant wind up, you really had me going there for a while.

Of course, if you're actually serious about all this, may I suggest you go and edit each and everyone of your posts defending and promoting the Loose Change video seeing as you've now had a little think about it and decided it's actually a pile of crap.

I would like to ask that you check the tone of your posts. and hold off on the comments, similar to the one in bold above.

Ciaran500

tunaman wrote:

It would be if the plane dived into the roof of the building, but the reality involved incredible accuracy, flying just a few feet off the ground...

Incredible accuracy :rolleyes:

He had a commercial pilots license so we know he was at least a comptent pilot

bonkey

Heading back dangerously on-topic...

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

Witty (if virtiolic) article offering a perspective on LC which - to be honest - I tend to generally agree with the sentiments of.

And while I think of it...

Squaddy wrote:

(There's a new one now, its completely different, but i havent looked at it yet.

Completely different, eh? Is Avery not implicitly admitting that much of LC Second Edition is downright wrong by producing a new version with different theories...even if that version doesn't get released?

I'm willing to bet, though, that he's still publically supporting the claims he made, and will continue to do so until the day he has a new version published with a new truth to sell.

Its a bit like washing-powder ads. When its the new powder, its perfect and shifts everything. When this becomes the old powder, all of a sudden there's all these stains it can't remove that mean you need the new, new powder.

I was talking to Dylan Avery on myspace he was saying that it could be in the cinema next year.)

Loose Change: Final Cut was originally touted for cinema release last Monday (sep 11, 2006). I think this may even be mentioned in the wikipedia entry on LC.

DA is still talking it up, but the release date seems to be shifted back to some indeterminate future point.

To be honest, I'd be highly surprised if it ever sees the light of day other than as another internet-release which you can buy in various high-quality formats if you want to pay for the real truth.

jc

Pongo

billy the squid wrote:

I would like to ask that you check the tone of your posts. and hold off on the comments, similar to the one in bold above.

My apologies, no offence intended, I could have phrased it better....

Pongo

tunaman wrote:

You are going to have to point out all these posts, as I don't remember ever promoting loose change...

I may have argued in favour of the demolition of those three buildings, which is included in loose change, but that's about it...

The obvious conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job was also put forward by loose change, so do you still believe the official conspiracy theory?

I'll be honest, I'm not going to trawl back through the thread to find the posts, it is possible that you didn't actually support Loose Change, but you certainly did support, and argue in favour of many of the theories that were put forward in it. I just found your sudden dismissal of it, strange. No offence intended.