Loose Change 9/11 Documentary

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by shadowmoses, Apr 8, 2006.

  1. shadowmoses macrumors 68000

    shadowmoses

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    #1
    Loose Change 9/11 Documentary

    This documentary is a must see, regardless of what you think of what happened 11th September 2001 its well worth a watch.

    When watching its worth downloading first so you can view it full screen with VLC your other option would be to watch it in the browser with google video's but thats not as good.

    For more info on the topic and the Movies creators visit www.loosechange911.com

    Peace,

    ShadoW
     
  2. Kwyjibo macrumors 68040

    Kwyjibo

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    #2
    I watched it with a grain of salt and it scares me. I agree that they're healthy questions but I'm not sure some of them dont' have logical answers ...

    I don't believe everything they said ... but the fact that I believe some of it and its rather possible ... thats what scares me.
     
  3. 2nyRiggz macrumors 603

    2nyRiggz

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Location:
    Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
    #3
    Seen it(it was cool) and i think there is a thread somewhere about it.


    Bless
     
  4. amacgenius macrumors 68000

    amacgenius

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #4
    Watched it on Google Video then bought the DVD from their site, I agree with everything in the documentary, and I think our government should be ashamed of what they did.
     
  5. shadowmoses thread starter macrumors 68000

    shadowmoses

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    #5
    Sorry if its a double post, did search couldn't find anything, anyway its good to spread the word further as I'm sure alot of people will see this thread and watch it for the first time,

    ShadOW
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    It's been done to death here

    And years ago when the silliness started.

    There's a delicious irony in conspiracy nuts being naïve as hell.
     
  7. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #7
    It lost all credibility with me when he said a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building.

    That was in 1945. The B-52 did not fly until 1954.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    But what's that flash? If you can't account for it, it must be a missile!!

    And why can't I see the paint scheme? If you can't see the AA livery, it must be an alien spaceship's photon torpedo dressed up as a 757!

    What an insult to the thousands who died.
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    It raises a lot of questions although I disagree with some of the statements. What I do agree with is the level of secrecy that the government surrounds everything with. There's a lot more than they will allow us to see and we'll never know what really happened. What's more important is all the crimes that have been committed since 9-11. The fact that the US elected such a bozo a second time is probably the biggest.
     
  10. shadowmoses thread starter macrumors 68000

    shadowmoses

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    #11
  11. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #12
    Whether the government carried it out on offense, or failed to protect it in defense, I firmly believe they are 100% responsible either way.
     
  12. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    I must say that this rebuttal and the site linked therein - do give pause.

    A compelling case for deception is put forward. Not really pleasant to think about though.

    Anyways, thanks for the read.
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    The rebuttal Royal Pineapple posted is interesting indeed...but it's worth noting (for those who don't want to take the time to look) that the author, Michael Green, does not dispute that 9/11 was an inside job, only the questionable "proof" and the motives of the people who made "Loose Change". In effect what we have here is dueling conspiracy theorists.

    I haven't seen "Loose Change", but I did read the bulk of Green's essay, and from what I can tell he's done a good job of debunking the former. That said, neither Green nor the people in his internal link take the events of 9/11 at face value. They think it was an inside job as well. To tell you the truth, I've been moving in that direction myself.

    I was not convinced by Alex Jones' hysterical paranoia fests, but by more restrained lectures, given by college physics professors, recorded and distributed on DVD (apparently) by average people, and using scientific principles rather than speculation to make their points.

    And I can tell you that -- while I'm not a full-fledged believer yet that the USA planned this event -- I'm somewhat on the way when a physics expert tells me that it's impossible for WT7 to implode later the same day even though it wasn't hit by anything and sustained only a few small fires.

    So yeah, while I don't think I'll be watching "Loose Change" or the Alex Jones stuff, my heart does turn cold as ice at the possibility that our government may have had something to do with it.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    Some people are just looking for anything to believe because they don't like the official story. I used to suggest they take the tinfoil hats off, but lately things have happened in this country that make me think some of them have points. Some, not all. At least people are asking questions, but sometimes I think the answers they come up with just make things worse. Just doesn't make the questions any less reasonable.
     
  15. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #16
    I watched the whole thing. Very well done. They convinced me, that's for sure. I was heavily suspectful beforehand, but I'm a full fledged believer now.

    However, I have not had a chance to read the article linked by royal pineapple, I'll try and do that tomorrow. I definitely want to see both sides.

    e
     
  16. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #17
    My roommate was stupid enough to fall for this film and the other one that pre-dates it. I beat him out of it, though.:D

    These films and the book that they're based on are nothing but a string of logical fallacies weaved together with misleading images and commentary thrown in to support their ridiculous argument. The moon landing hoax theory is more convincing than this garbage.
     
  17. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #18
    Okay, I just finished reading the article. Very interesting indeed.

    I don't have a definite opinion at this time, but I do suspect it was an inside job. The movie maker and the article author both agree that the towers should not have fallen.

    In any case, I do think it could have been prevented.

    I'd like to know why the government is hiding the footage of the pentagon being hit. They have no reason to hide it. I'd also like to know why bomb dogs were pulled from the WTC's two weeks before hand. And all the put options on Boeing stock? I definitely would like to have that explained. There's a lot of questions to be answered, I don't think that is disputable.

    e
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    the 9/11 commission investigated it. from here:
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Not having access to broadband at home, I haven't watched the video. However, I would like to know if either the movie maker or the article author are, or consulted with, a registered structural engineer before leading you to believe the towers should not have fallen.

    Engineering reports I have seen do not reach that conclusion.
     
  20. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #21
    Oh, lord.

    At the cable outfit I work for, somebody is bringing in a DVD of "Loose Change" for us to run on our public access channel. So I guess I'll be seeing it after all.

    At least I'll get to compare it against Michael Green's debunking paper.

    (I tried to watch the thing online, but it stutters badly for me.)
     
  21. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #22
    My opinion is mostly based on other reasons. I've heard lots of opposing thoughts from professionals and non-professionals about whether the towers should have fallen from an airplane collision alone. My suspicion comes more from other suspicious things, like bomb dogs being pulled from the towers prior to the attack, the unconvincing calls from flight 93, the government not releasing the only footage of the pentagon being hit and then many conflicting reports as to what hit the pentagon, and other suspicious stuff. Why wouldn't the government release the footage of the pentagon being hit? They confiscated that footage right away and forced the people who saw it not to say anything.

    e
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Ok, but I'm just asking about the structural aspect. The idea that it couldn't fall down due to a blast impact that wasn't designed (or spec'd) for and followed by intense heat on the now-exposed structural steel members is completely false. Engineering models have demonstrated quite clearly that the sequence of events in this supposed 'cover story' (planes loaded with kerosene-based fuel crashing at high speed into the structure) are a plausible explanation for a total structural failure.

    Whatever other evidence you are considering, just don't hang your hat on the idea that it's impossible for the towers to have fallen.
     
  23. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #24
    I am just wondering if you have any links to any of the stories about the models that demonstrated it would have fallen.

    I believe that it would have fallen anyways but a friend of mine is saying it is entirely implausible
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    check out "Deconstructing the Towers' Collapse", from this PBS page.

    i believe this is the piece i saw aired on PBS, though i thought it was a Frontline piece. but i couldn't find that, so perhaps it was indeed Nova. regardless, the piece i saw i thought was pretty convincing in describing why the towers collapsed the way they did, due only to the impact and aftermath of the jets.
     

Share This Page