Loose Change - a must see

by JD » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:17 am

Not sure if everyone has seen the Loose Change video on 9/11 yet. Very good work. Not perfect, but very good. If material like this doesn't get people thinking, nothing will. If you haven't seen it yet spend an hour and a half watching it here: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change">video.google.com/videopla...ose+change</a>

by **Dreams End** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:21 pm

This is a very good summary of the non-hologram, pro-cd (but with real WTC planes), no Pentagon plane theories. There are some inconsistencies and logical leaps, but also lots of food for thought. I am uncomfortable that the primary print source is American Free Press and the primary tv coverage is from FOX... I think folks like Qutb should have a look. There's some pretty easy stuff to debunk...but I think there's also stuff to think about. Some we all agree about, such as put options, stand downs, etc. One thought I had is that the OFFICIAL theory should not have ruled out explosions..as the wtc has been bombed before. That is, there's nothing weird about investigating that bombs had been planted to be detonated after the plane hit. It's a pretty logical thing to assume, actually. In the days immediately following it really does seem like there were enough witness reports of secondary explosions that it would have been an important avenue to pursue. Could they have parked "another" u-haul filled with explosives to help finish the job? NO reason the government would avoid that theory. Naturally, the witness reports they pick are selective, but they are eerie...footage from the day itself with people talking about explosions, etc. Still, they show some CD examples, and talk about witnesses seeing flashes go off before the buildings fall, but the video shows no flashes. Similar deal with the Pentagon footage...the report witness reports of silver flashes, show how plane explosions are orange, and then show orange flame from a pic of the explosion at the pentagon. So there's tons to pick on. I think we need to follow the example of the now deceased "questionsquestions" site, which still is up with archives. that is, they question the story, absolutely but are also willing to pick apart not only bad theories but also questionable actors in the "truth movement." I look at their archives, and you see Larouche (with caveats) but many other perspectives also...so food for thought. THey may turn out to have some heavier larouche influence, as they are definitely concerned about population reduction/eugenics (so am I...just not comfortable relying on Larouchian material). The long lost proldic was fond of pointing out that Larouche can have the influence he does precisely because the left doesn't address issues like the longrunning eugenics ideology and elite planning for population reduction. I mention that because I do recognize that it's all a muddle. I offer this brief summary from someone linked to Questionsquestions ("angie"...I don't know the players on that site at all) which points out the "creepiness factor" behind many in the 911 truth movement. <a href="http://www.angieon911.com/">www.angieon911.com/</a> This is not to debunk the video...it's to ask everyone to be very aware of the games that are being played here. I don't assume that because of these games there is no truth to 911 conspiracy theories. It's just the opposite. Because I believe there is plenty of truth to it, that I assume such disinformation has come about. In fact, why have disinformation at all if there is nothing to hide? The video will not convert non-CD folks. I'm still a CD'er at heart, simply because of the level of coincidence in the three collapses. I simply do not believe in coincidence at that level. And the video does not make an airtight case at all, even with some downright bad information. (The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed so a fireball could not have burned going all the way down as there would be no air. Well, if the burning fuel got into the shaft, I'm guessing air could as well. that kind of thing.) There are other inconsistencies that suggest that really, the video, and I think many of us, aren't really decided on what theory we believe. For example, the idea that replacement planes, remotely piloted were brought in. well, why the warnings to Ashcroft and Willie Brown. If the real planes were to be landed and replaced, surely they would not choose flights those two guys would have been on. And if it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, why does the vid make a big deal of an alleged military aircraft part there? If it was planted, why not plant a 757 part instead? Also, the northwoods document is brought up. Well, it SHOULD be...it still creeps me out to see that stuff in print. But the plan in there about taking a planeload of military people posing as college students and replacing their plane with a drone only makes sense as an attempt to pull off the event without killing a bunch of actual airline passengers (otherwise, just blow up a plane). Clearly they had no such qualms on 9/11, so surely much safer to rig a plane with remote control and allow the passengers to die along with the building occupants. Otherwise, they either have to execute a bunch of passengers, or give them all new lives. Interesting stuff, however, on the feasibility of remote controls on planes (footage of a NASA study that did just that, including, says the video, 10 takeoffs and landings), and voice morphing technology (to fake cell phone calls). I remember the article in 2004 the vid references announcing this great new technology to allow cell phone calls from planes. The first thing I thought was...wait a second...if they couldn't do it before..... And some weird content to the phone calls was pointed out as well. Like a son who calls his mom and identifies himself with his full name. Or stewardess Ong's call that is so calm, and so little noise in the background (while "no one can breathe in business class due to mace or something") I think it's worth a look. But I think that those supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially more elaborate ones need to be the MOST rigorous. And watch out who you ally with.

by **CyberChrist** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:27 pm

I agree.. I ordered a whole spool and gave them all away. The movie is something that everyone needs to see and ponder. -- CyberChrist http://www.hackerjournal.org My brain is hung like a horse.

by **Gouda** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:25 pm

DE, you alight on many of the same head-scratchers I found in Loose Change. And this angie gal, now she does serve up some food for thought... I think she is probably short-shrifting the totality of Paul Thompson's work and importance for the 911 movement, but what she says here is certainly worth considering: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Common too is the pointing, by people who should know better that the evidence demonstrates 9-11 was an inside job, at countries other than the u.s. as being the true culprits, creating motivations for the u.s. to attack other countries. Think Michael Moore and the Saudis; or Pakistan and Paul Thompson, whose timeline based solely on mainstream corporate news reporting (you know, what we've all learned to trust so much :-) has just been released in book form. "Paul says either the US government was directly involved with Pakistan and other countries in the 9-11 plot and allowed it to happen or helped it to happen, or the US government was taken for fools and afterwards covered up their foolishness" <a href="http://www.snowshoefilms.com/911coverup.html.">www.snowshoefilms.com/911coverup.html.</a> Here's to hoping that ridiculous conclusion isn't published in the Thompson Timeline book, which I've just purchased but haven't yet read. A quick aside - I note with distress that the forward to Thompson's celebrated 590 page book was written by Peter Lance who is also making the rounds at 9-11 truth movement events himself, pushing his own new Terror Cover Up book. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Lance promoting his own new book: "Lance doesn't subscribe to the notion that U.S. authorities intentionally allowed the 9/11 attack to occur in order to justify the Bush administration's new, aggressively unilateral approach to world affairs, explaining, "I'm not some conspiracy guy, I'm a hard-bitten journalist." Instead, he attributes the cover-up to the oldest motivation in the book - covering one's ass . . . [over] screw ups". <a href="http://www.independent.com/news/news928.htm">www.independent.com/news/news928.htm</a> And sad to say, here is Paul Thompson in his book's introduction, speaking not of governmental complicity or of an inside-job, but of failures: "Who in our government failed in their constitutional duty to 'protect and defend' us from these attacks? And how can we ensure that such failures will not occur again? We must find answers to these questions. The United States will remain vulnerable - we are not safe and we will not be safe - until we can answer these questions, until we can call to account those who have failed us, and until we repair institutional dysfunctions that contributed to this failure." Simply outrageous!! <hr></blockquote> edit: removal of the mutant verb 'have' Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 3/30/06 12:34 pm

by JD » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:41 pm

I don't agree with all the movies points. When I said "it wasn't perfect" I was being overly charitable. I would do a lot of it differently. I'd actually change a lot of things. But hey; that's how things work. Different interpretations are good. I thought that it is however very well produced; good use of graphics and music. Not hard to watch until its end. Actually entertaining. This is awesome some young guys did this on there own as far as I can see (or do they have affiliations with anyone?) Got me thinking again about the Pentagon strike. Dammit, NOTHING makes sense about that. I find neither the conventional explanation nor the tin-hat ones to be anywhere close to satisfying. See my recent post about the "punch-out". I'd missed the significance of this item before totally. WTF. The biggest point to this show I want to make is to get people THINKING. In this TV age, a production like Loose Change is more likely to strike a chord with the common dude than any blog or website. And DE - you hit the nail on the head. Don't trust NOBODY! Wouldn't surprise me at all if a large number of prominent 9/11 activists are agents. I've always found it better to stick to QUESTIONS rather than trying to develop theories of explanation. How can you explain something complex with a fragmentatry data set? This is the hole all the tin-foilers fall into, and I ain't gonna make that mistake! I prefer to call myself an "anomolist" and "collector of contradictory information" and not a "conspiracy theorist" cuz I ain't got any theories!

by **slimmouse** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I've always found it better to stick to QUESTIONS rather than trying to develop theories of explanation. <hr></blockquote> The UK 9/11 movement has recently altered its constitution to suggest that what we ask of those who must be obeyed is simply the truth about what happened. This of course puts the pressure back on them, since it should be plainly clear to anyone, that this isnt what the official version even comes close to. In the meantime of course, it remains important to my mind to point out, by whichever means work, the fact that the official version is quite simply the biggest conspiracy theory of them all <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

by **Qutb** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:55 pm

Well, I don't agree about just sticking to questions. What good are questions, especially about something like this, if you make no attempt to answer them? Loose Change, and most of this material, is all about "questioning the official story"... okay, but that's easy. It's easy with any big chaotic event, at least one around which the "national security"-mandated secrecy fairly tight. Point to something and say "what's the proof of this"? Pick it apart. Find eyewitness accounts that seem to differ. Question the physics. Doubt everything. Trust no one. The truth is out there... But how about suggesting a coherent alternative narrative, and laying out the evidence for it? Let's see if the alternative story - any alternative story - stands up to scrutiny better than the offcial story. None of the Truthers has done this, so far. I don't care if some guy thinks that the towers should have fallen differently. Give me a theory about what kind of explosives, how much, who put it there, how long it took, when it was done, how they managed to do that without getting caught. And show me the evidence for each claim. Then I would surely be interested, but I'm not holding my breath, given that we know that no such evidence exists. No trace of it. So, obviously, those who choose to entertain such speculations will stick to "asking questions". Loose Change doesn't even do that well, it's actually closer to a textbook example of a propaganda piece. I think it's a manipulative and misleading load of hokum. The part with the eye witnesses alone... A TV reporter standing close to the tower says "it's a huge explosion!". Well, it isn't, it's the tower collapsing. However, this guy, being in the middle of that, didn't know what the hell was happening except it was a terrorist attack. So he thinks "explosion". I would probably have thought "explosion" too, if I was there. Same thing with the people who talk about explosions in the lobby, elevator doors blew open etc. Jet fuel caused that, as is well known - unless you refuse to believe it could do that, of course, like Eric Hufschmidt. But if so, at least argue against it. Don't just lump all the eyewitnesses together who uses the word "explosion" and pretend to have made your case. DE - I think investigators initially did suspect explosive devices. Eyewitnesses had reported explosions in the lobby, basement etc, and the WTC had been bombed before, so it was a natural thing to suspect. But I also think they ruled that out pretty quickly, in the absence of evidence and given the more plausible explanations for these witness reports. Can we know with absolute certainty that there werean't any explosives planted in the lobby and basement of the WTC? No, but I find speculating about it a waste of time. Also keep in mind that a few explosive charges, at least in the basement, could have been planted by anyone. It wouldn't point to a larger conspiracy, necessarily. And as these explosions were reported to occur shortly after the planes hit (consistent with the jetfuel hypothesis), they obviously didn't bring the towers down. About the put options, I don't think they're such a big deal in terms of proving a govt/mil/int/administration conspiracy. Want to bet they would turn out to made by al-Qaida-connected businessmen in Dubai or something like that? They were probably covered up because the identities of the buyers were too delicate diplomatically. I mean, we're talking about a couple of millions or something. Do you think the National Security State would care about pocket change like that, to the point of risking exposure of their complicity? There were reports in the press about speculations in oil, gold and stocks more generally and so on at the time I remember. No follow-ups to those reports ever came, so I don't know what to believe about that. But that would have been more substantial. Still, nothing compared to the Pentagon's annual budget, nor necessarily more than people loosely "in the know" in the Gulf, Malaysia, Singapore etc. couldn't have pulled off. The 9/11 plot does not appear to have been much of a real secret anyway. Wanna see a better 9/11 film? <a href="http://www.tweevandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&func=view&cid=2&sid=29882#" target="top">Here's</a> a Dutch film, featuring Michael Meecher and Andreas von Bülow. Gets into PNAC, Brzezinski, the missing air response, Mahmud Ahmed and Saeed Sheikh etc. English subtitles.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, I don't agree about just sticking to questions. What good are questions, especially about something like this, if you make no attempt to answer them?<hr></blockquote> I find this interesting. I know of someone on this board, who has continuously attempted to answer many of the bigger questions. Not only that, this individual has backed his assertions up with proof. Only to be ridiculed of course. Im really confused by your post QUTB. On the one hand someone offers you the answers, which, even when laid out plain you appear to have plenty of criticism of . Then in the next breath, you appear to suggest that collectively we might knit together the virtually impossible with regards to exactly how the scam of the century was pulled off ? Heres my angle. Weve been lied to in spades, in order to justify the resulting murder, torture and theft of peoples who have never intended us any real harm. To propose the entire solution is like asking for the 2 minute mile. Do we truly need to move the goalposts so far in order to make an answerable case ? Thats a pile of crock in my view. We have been sold the mother of all lies. FACT. The more people who understand this, the better.

by **Qutb** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>On the one hand someone offers you the answers, which, even when laid out plain you appear to have plenty of criticism of .<hr></blockquote> I have no idea what you're talking about. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Then in the next breath, you appear to suggest that collectively we might knit together the virtually impossible with regards to exactly how the scam of the century was pulled off ?<hr></blockquote> I didn't suggest that at all. In actuality, I suggested that these hardcore "mihop" "questions" are loose unsubstantiated speculations, and nothing more. I wouldn't try to knit together anything with most of those who're into these speculations, by the way.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I didn't suggest that at all. In actuality, I suggested that these hardcore "mihop" "questions" are loose unsubstantiated speculations, and nothing more. I wouldn't try to knit together anything with most of those who're into these speculations, by the way.<hr></blockquote> Lets get back to some basics here. We have been lied to in Spades. Countless innocents have died courtesy of those lies, and countless hours of OUR labour have paid for the resulting suffering, by way of taxes, which pay for this horrendous war machine. I could never pretend to understand exactly what happened. I doubt you could. I doubt anyone else could, other than those who know. I will suffice it to say, that those who DO know are far liklier to be in the corridors of Washington ( Be they the ignorant politicians themselves or their Ignoramus lobbyists ), than they are in the painted reflection of OBL or Zarquarwi, or any other such Orwellian fabrications. These are simple truths, which you and I understand. Time to tell people is my best guess.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:20 pm

Somedays, when I have time, I copy a stack of fliers and stand in front of the federal building in my city saying "did you know our government destroyed the WTC" Usually I do not receive a very warm welcome. Some curse me; all are shocked. Yesterday, the majority of those who passed said "yeah, I know" and looked like they were going to throw up.Most of the others just took a flier and said they'd look into. Only one man stood and argued with me. He finally left, heading for the library to look up the Scholars for Truth website. I don't know whether to laugh or cry....

by **Dreams End** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:18 am

I don't know, Qutb...I don't think you could rule out explosives or rule them in based on witness reports. Lots of people mentioned them in the video and I don't know when the jet fuel down the elevator shaft theory came into being. However, the fall of the towers was unprecedented and dramatic, so I was just thinking that there should have been an active search. No reason to assume it couldn't have been other alleged Al Qaida operatives, as they've done it before. But I think the bomb idea was ruled out fairly quickly. And this did make me wonder. personally, I'm not that familiar with the flame down the shaft theory. I didn't see scorch marks in the lobby, just evidence of concussive force. I'm trying to think exactly how that would work. The jet fuel was already on fire by the time it got to the bottom so where does the concussive force come from? By the way, were BOTH tower lobbies affected in this way, or just one? Were there reports of bottom floor windows blown out in both, for example? I think that's an excellent question to help settle that one little detail. I doubt they'd rig the towers differently. When one of the buildings falls, it really does look like the fall starts at the floor where the plane hit. This seems to me to be evidence that it was NOT rigged as no one, even remotely, would hit that accurately. If it was the US government, I wouldn't actually expect conventional explosives anyway. I'm sure some high tech gizmo or another could weaken the steal without exploding. I was definitely interested in the thermite theory but Qutb pointed out that the "molten steel weeks later" story is ONLY found in American Free Press. The trick would be to find the person they quoted and see if that can be verified elsewhere. I've seen it nowhere else. That's another absolutely smoking gun...there's no explanation for it in the conventional theory. HOWEVER, that doesn't matter if it didn't actually happen! So, pro-cd'ers. Homework I don't have time to do. Compare witness reports of the two lobbies. Were BOTH blown out? Can this be explained by fuel down elevator shafts in both? (The video argument about their being airtight is rather silly, as I mentioned. If fuel got in, so did air...and come to think of it, the idea of riding in an airtight elevator shaft doesn't sound like a good one for you oxygen fans out there. Secondly, is there independent confirmation of the molten steel? who was the guy quoted in AFP? Can he be tracked? did anyone else quote that? Anyone else report that (other than repeating AFP reports)? I'll expect a report on my desk in the morning. Make it so.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:15 am

Qutb, you wrote "I mean, we're talking about a couple of millions or something." It was actually far more. A week later Bloomberg Business News said "This is the worst case of insider trading ever." Andreas von Bulow has mentioned an estimate of $15 billion. There was $100 million in suspicious transactions that were rushed through the WTC computers the very morning of the attack. (See <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/02/oh-places-you-go-when-you-follow-money.html">this post</a> from last year about what happened to the data recovery of those computers.)

by **Qutb** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:31 am

I was talking about the put options, which didn't amount to more than a few millions. The money that was rushed through the WTC computers is a different matter, and much more interesting. Unfortunately, nothing new has become known about that after Convar was purchased by Kroll... all we know is that a lot of money was transferred. It sure would be interesting to speak with the Convar people who worked on those hard drives. I don't know where Bülow gets his $15 billion estimate from, but he's definitely not talking about the put options. More likely speculation in gold, oil, currency etc.

by **FourthBase** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:55 am

OK, how much of the fuel was burned at the impact zone instantly, inside and outside the buildings? Then of that fuel that was left, how much of it would be needed to travel down the really, really, really long elevator shaft...which isn't actually one single top-bottom shaft, is it? Weren't the shafts segmented in thirds? Weren't there elevator exchange lobbies? Did the force and fire travel up the shaft, or just down, or both ways? And it's already on fire? It's a fireball? It was powerful enough to knock out the lobby windows? Wouldn't it also have blown through all of the elevator door openings at each floor, successively losing its force before it hit the ground lobby? Just wondering.

Loose Change - a must see

Loose Change - a must see

Re: Loose Change - a must see

Re: Loose Change - a must see

Re: Loose Change - a must see

Charitable

I actually like this thinking.

Re: Charitable

I find your angle interesting.

Re: I find your angle interesting.

Heres my repeat suggestion,

telling people

Re: telling people

insider trading

Re: Insider trading

Jet fuel down the shaft

Who is online