911 [LOOSE CHANGE] movie... wow!

BaptBapt 2,503 Posts
edited March 2016 in Off Topic (NRR)
Damn, I'm late but I'm sure some of the strutters have missed it too.





That kind of investigation.
«1

  Comments


  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    Oh, dear Jebus no. Please...not Loose Change again....

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    Oh, dear Jebus no. Please...not Loose Change again....

    do you fear the truth?



  • It's all about Building 7 batches. Even if the rest of the story washes, Building 7 collapsing is mad fake.

    I don't care if you're sick of hearing about it, but that is the key right thurr.

  • BlightyBlighty 225 Posts
    Loose Change Second edition is a great introduction and overview of many of the more puzzling aspects and unanswered questions of 9/11. Yes it's flawed but considering these guys were all in their late teens when they made it they really did do a great job. They also work incredibly hard interviewing people, collecting together 9/11 footage and making these things available online. I was just watching an interview they did a couple of days ago with Craig Bartmer who was a NYC cop who's sick like many of those who worked at Ground Zero looking for survivors sucking up asbestos and heavy metals from the destroyed computers into his lungs. Christine Todd Whitman told New Yorkers that the air was safe to breath and that people should get back to work and as Bush said 'go shopping'. This was a lie and people who worked at Ground Zero, the heroes of 9/11, are dying as a result of that lie.

    The Loose Change guys also distributed 10,000 free DVDs and 2,000 free 'Investigate 9/11' t-shirts in New York on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. They do radio interviews and TV and they're currently working on a final version of Loose Change which they're aiming to get into movie theaters next year.

    There are several other excellent 9/11 documentaries available to watch on Google video now too.

    9/11 Press For Truth focuses on the Jersey Girls and other 9/11 family members and is built around Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 website and subsequent book. It's all mainstream media information that proves the official story is a lie and is very powerful as a result of that. There's nothing in there regarding explosives or missiles being fired into the Pentagon so for people who don't find these theories credible it's a more watchable movie. It's also very well made, very informative and does a great job showing how the Bush regime have done everything they can to hide the truth about 9/11, the fight by the families members to get the 9/11 Commission to happen and the betrayal of the Bush regime in regards to that, it shows how the Taleban were allowed to escape in Afghanistan, the Randy Glass story and a lot of other important information.

    9/11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions focuses on the idea the twin towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives. Again it's a well made and thought provoking documentary showing how they could have gotten the explosives into the building and how the buildings would have been brought down. There's some fascinating footage in this and a lot of very interesting interviews. Much like Loose Change and 9/11 Press For Truth you can watch a high quality (roughly 700 meg) version of this movie if you download the Google Video Player and stream the movies onto your hard drive. The people who made 9/11 Mysteries (mostly one lady called Sophia) are working on two other parts with the second focusing on the hijackers and the third on who benefited from the attacks.

    Ludicrous Diversions focuses on the 7/7 London bombings and again exposes the lack of evidence to support the official story and many of the unanswered questions as well as looking into other aspects of the 'war on terror' in the UK and the attacks on civil liberties. Again it's a very well made provocative documentary. There's also an avi version of it here.

    I agree that the collapse of WTC 7 is one of the main giveaways that something is not right with the official story. Ditto for Larry Silverstein's 'pull it' statement and Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

    Like a lot of people I view 9/11 as the key to ending the 'war on terror', the loss of our civil liberties and so much that is wrong with the world right now. The official story is clearly a lie and there is an ever increasing number of very credible people coming out and saying this including former FBI and CIA agents, former US military, former Whitehouse staff, politicians from outside the US, academics, pilots and many more. Yes it is a 'conspiracy theory' but the official story is a 'conspiracy theory' too and one that has far less credibility and makes far less sense than claims that it was allowed to happen or that it was an 'inside job'.


  • kalakala 3,339 Posts
    it has affected everything
    babylon has free reign now to run amok under this new united states of halliburton /root browne/carlyle group.

    a simple trip to the post is ruined with scads of paperwork for all lps bound to europe or canada
    doubles on forms
    fuck
    triples at ups

    anyone know who frank carlucci is?
    dem ras

  • we really need a ::lizardalert:: graemlin...



  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,787 Posts
    Anyone watch the dudes from Loose Change debate the guys from Popular Mechanics? While I thought nobody did a great job. Those dudes from L.C. should stick to using the net and not doing their talking points in front of a camera.

  • Anyone watch the dudes from Loose Change debate the guys from Popular Mechanics? While I thought nobody did a great job. Those dudes from L.C. should stick to using the net and not doing their talking points in front of a camera.

    I thought they did okay. The Loose Change guys looked very nervous at the start but they did get some good information out. Problem is they're just young guys and debating with two men who are obviously much more comfortable in front of cameras and much more experienced with this sort of debate.

    The Popular Mechanics guys were due to be on some radio show recently but when they found out they were booked to be on the show with some of the guys from Scholars For 9/11 Truth and they would be debating them on air they pulled out. That would have been a much more even match and one I would have liked to have heard.

    There was another good debate recently with Matthew Rothschild (editor of The Progressive Magazine) and Michael Berger from 911truth.org (a great site that South Park plugged in that 9/11 episode). Well worth checking out (mp3 of the show via the link).

  • salviasalvia 279 Posts
    I think it's a really bad documentary. It's full of small quotes without context and absurd theories.

    Especially the Pentagon theory about the missle is really weird. It didn't make sense to me when i first heard of that theory, probably 2 years ago, but it makes sense to me now. I mean it's a fact that there are numerous videos that were seized that show a better image of the crash than the officially released video. Why don??t they release those? Well, i think they want to wait until enough people buy the missle theory (and other bogus theories) and then they will release the proper videos (and other evidence) to show the people that the conspiracy theorists were wrong all along. The problem with this is that all conspiracy theorists will be put in the same boat. And that the ones that were asking genuine questions will be ignored.

  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts

    this is weak. real weak.

    I wish I could convince myself that our government doesn't commit terrorists acts all over the globe. How do you guys do it?

  • ^^^^^^

    I gotta agree... That "Screw loosechange" blog is pretty lame. His efforts to refute the whole thing aren't really convincing. I'm not so sure that Loose Change has all the answers, but someone has to ask some questions.

    I have huge empathy for the victims, but this event has been the catalyst for a whole new world, and there haven't been too many good explanations for how it happened.

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    ^^^^^^

    I gotta agree... That "Screw loosechange" blog is pretty lame. His efforts to refute the whole thing aren't really convincing. I'm not so sure that Loose Change has all the answers, but someone has to ask some questions.

    I have huge empathy for the victims, but this event has been the catalyst for a whole new world, and there haven't been too many good explanations for how it happened.

    I heard a secret cabal of either jews or Lizards is pulling the strings.

    I also got an unconfirmed report of Jewzards being spotted near stonehenge and Wall St.

    I'll see if I can get Sleuther Vandross to get to the bottom of this

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts

    I wish I could convince myself that our government doesn't commit terrorists acts all over the globe. How do you guys do it?

    I'm well aware that our government does shady shit all over the globe. I'm also well aware that Loose Change is a bunch of thinly veiled bullshit that proves nothing but sure stokes the fires of lunacy. How you get from A (government bad) to B (9/11 is a massive hoax the likes of which the world has never seen and is far and away the most efficiently carried-out government operation in human history) is a mystery.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    This same administration couldn't handle Afghanistan, Iraq and Katrina, how the hell did they pull off 9/11????

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts

    I wish I could convince myself that our government doesn't commit terrorists acts all over the globe. How do you guys do it?

    I'm well aware that our government does shady shit all over the globe. I'm also well aware that Loose Change is a bunch of thinly veiled bullshit that proves nothing but sure stokes the fires of lunacy. How you get from A (government bad) to B (9/11 is a massive hoax the likes of which the world has never seen and is far and away the most efficiently carried-out government operation in human history) is a mystery.

    you're one of them, aren't you?

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts

    I wish I could convince myself that our government doesn't commit terrorists acts all over the globe. How do you guys do it?

    I'm well aware that our government does shady shit all over the globe. I'm also well aware that Loose Change is a bunch of thinly veiled bullshit that proves nothing but sure stokes the fires of lunacy. How you get from A (government bad) to B (9/11 is a massive hoax the likes of which the world has never seen and is far and away the most efficiently carried-out government operation in human history) is a mystery.

    you're one of them, aren't you?

    I hope you're aware, Guzzo, that as a lizard person, i can communicate telepathically with all reptiles. It would be a shame if you, oh, I don't know...happened to encounter a vindictive turtle....

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts

    I wish I could convince myself that our government doesn't commit terrorists acts all over the globe. How do you guys do it?

    I'm well aware that our government does shady shit all over the globe. I'm also well aware that Loose Change is a bunch of thinly veiled bullshit that proves nothing but sure stokes the fires of lunacy. How you get from A (government bad) to B (9/11 is a massive hoax the likes of which the world has never seen and is far and away the most efficiently carried-out government operation in human history) is a mystery.

    you're one of them, aren't you?

    I hope you're aware, Guzzo, that as a lizard person, i can communicate telepathically with all reptiles. It would be a shame if you, oh, I don't know...happened to encounter a vindictive turtle....

    don't think for a moment that I dare walk down the street without aluminum foil and dylithium crystals.

    you may know the truth, but I know the real

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts

    I wish I could convince myself that our government doesn't commit terrorists acts all over the globe. How do you guys do it?

    I'm well aware that our government does shady shit all over the globe. I'm also well aware that Loose Change is a bunch of thinly veiled bullshit that proves nothing but sure stokes the fires of lunacy. How you get from A (government bad) to B (9/11 is a massive hoax the likes of which the world has never seen and is far and away the most efficiently carried-out government operation in human history) is a mystery.

    you're one of them, aren't you?

    I hope you're aware, Guzzo, that as a lizard person, i can communicate telepathically with all reptiles. It would be a shame if you, oh, I don't know...happened to encounter a vindictive turtle....

    don't think for a moment that I dare walk down the street without aluminum foil and dylithium crystals.

    you may know the truth, but I know the real

    Curses..."foiled" again!

  • I'm well aware of the conspiracy nuts, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have a few questions. Seriously, deriding anyone who hasn't swallowed the story hook, line and sinker is pretty naive, and a perfect breeding ground for apathy and ignorance.

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    I'm well aware of the conspiracy nuts, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have a few questions. Seriously, deriding anyone who hasn't swallowed the story hook, line and sinker is pretty naive, and a perfect breeding ground for apathy and ignorance.

    And this is the stock response: "It's not unreasonable to ask questions."

    No, it's not unreasonable to ask reasonable questions. But that's not what conspiracy theorists do. They don't tend to ask questions at all, reasonable or not; they prefer to simply posit theories about how it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and those planes that hit the twin towers didn't really cause the damage--it was pre-planted explosives! The "asking questions" line only comes out when said theorists are asked to support their claims: "Hey, I'm just askin' questions here!"

    Coming up next: "If you buy the official story of 9/11, then you clearly believe every single thing the government has said and will ever say." Boy, do I love that one.

    Honestly, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are rapidly becoming the left-wing version of creationists. And I have a very, very, very low opinion of creationists.

  • z_illaz_illa 867 Posts
    naive
    ignorance.


    sup guzzo?

  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    naive
    ignorance.


    sup guzzo?

    not me, and I'm not falling for this reptillian mind trick.

    I bought a forcefield from the CIA at the health fair last week.

    don't tet

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    I try not to question common sense and logic.

    I've learned that things really are what they appear to be...

    We did land on the moon, David Blaine is not Jesus, and the world is most definitely flat.

  • I'm well aware of the conspiracy nuts, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have a few questions. Seriously, deriding anyone who hasn't swallowed the story hook, line and sinker is pretty naive, and a perfect breeding ground for apathy and ignorance.

    And this is the stock response: "It's not unreasonable to ask questions."

    No, it's not unreasonable to ask reasonable questions. But that's not what conspiracy theorists do. They don't tend to ask questions at all, reasonable or not; they prefer to simply posit theories about how it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and those planes that hit the twin towers didn't really cause the damage--it was pre-planted explosives! The "asking questions" line only comes out when said theorists are asked to support their claims: "Hey, I'm just askin' questions here!"

    Coming up next: "If you buy the official story of 9/11, then you clearly believe every single thing the government has said and will ever say." Boy, do I love that one.

    Honestly, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are rapidly becoming the left-wing version of creationists. And I have a very, very, very low opinion of creationists.

    exactly, thank you Enki.

    I did and do continue to ask questions every day about all of this stuff. Rather than "swallowing a story hook line and sinker", i looked for real DATA from real experts. Time and again, the only answers that add up do not support a massive conspiracy on 9/11. therefore, "doo doo on a stick" is my call, and im sticking to it.

    Back when i saw loose change for the first time, (about a year ago) i watched the entire thing and it did strongly affect me. But rather than go "this confirms my beliefs and suspicions", i said "wow, serious claims and questions and implications. ok, what do they got here?" Do the homework and youll eventually find, they dont really have anything.

    believing something went down other than the official story puts the burden of proof on the the believer of 'other'.
    simplistic example:
    the world is round.
    prove it!
    scientists can demonstrate it.
    the world is flat.
    prove it!
    dont have to! those "world is round" scientists are in on the conspiracy!
    but wheres your evidence the world is flat?
    doesnt matter! its a massive cover up!

    note - im not sayin the govt isnt corrupt, etc. (has it EVER not been? human nature leads to abuse of power, and always has)

    also, ill grant that the screw loose change dude comes off pretty snotty sometimes - but its more the info and links he gathered that makes that site valuable.

    edit - also, this is a good read. (yes, its supposed to be humorous, but it prety much hits the nail on the head.) (i suppose Rolling Stone mag is in on it now too, right? etc etc...)

  • You're right Enki. Well done on finding some info that's more firm, cause I haven't found much. I'm an open book so school me on what really went down.

    The questions I'm honestly asking are - How did it take so long for anyone to notice planes going off course? How did such a strong building fall so easily? Why did building 7 fall at all? And how was the security of the Pentagon breached so easily? Where is the better footage of the plane?


    It's an awful tradgedy, and I empathise with everyone touched by it, except the people who've gained from it. And unfortunately a good percentage of people that messed up that day fall under that category.

  • believing something went down other than the official story puts the burden of proof on the the believer of 'other'.
    simplistic example:
    the world is round.
    prove it!
    scientists can demonstrate it.
    the world is flat.
    prove it!
    dont have to! those "world is round" scientists are in on the conspiracy!
    but wheres your evidence the world is flat?
    doesnt matter! its a massive cover up!

    Let's try that again dogg,
    You got it reversed.

    If building 7 collapses without being hit by a plane, I think the burden of proof lies with the authorities who would tell us how and why it happened.

    Since there is NO logical explanation why building 7 fell, and since the government's official explanation is so farcical (one or two floors were on fire so the whole building collapsed perfectly, symetrically and instantaneously), then I am JUSTIFIED in thinking that there is some bullschitt going on.

    For someone to question an official story puts the burden of proof on the government. And when the government CATEGORICALLY WON'T prove the details (like not showing us ANY footage of ANYTHING flying into the
    Pentagon at all, when simply showing ONE SINGLE FUCKING PHOTO would be enough to prove the official version of events) one is left to assume that there is a cover up.

    To prove that the official story has even one little flaw is tantamount to proving a conspiracy.

    Ya think?

  • novocaine132 must have been reading my mind when I was typing this but anyway....

    believing something went down other than the official story puts the burden of proof on the the believer of 'other'.
    simplistic example:
    the world is round.
    prove it!
    scientists can demonstrate it.
    the world is flat.
    prove it!
    dont have to! those "world is round" scientists are in on the conspiracy!
    but wheres your evidence the world is flat?
    doesnt matter! its a massive cover up!


    The key word is 'believe' though isn't it. You can believe the official story or you can believe something else. In your example scientists can obviously prove the world is round but with 9/11 the theory that it was 19 Arab hijackers working under the orders of bin Laden is unproven (hence the fact that bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted page still makes no mention of the 9/11 attacks). The impact of the planes and the subsequent fires bringing down the twin towers is unproven. Fire bringing down WTC 7 is unproven. And so on.

    It is up to the Bush regime to prove their story and they haven't done that so naturally other theories have emerged. In fact the Bush regime did everything they could to block an investigation that would have shown us what happened. The 9/11 families had to fight incredibly hard to get the 9/11 Commission to happen. 3000 people murdered, why did they have to fight for that? Sadly they couldn't get Bush crony and ???public myths??? expert Philip Zelikow taken off the commission,they couldn't get their questions asked and the 9/11 Commission ended up being a rather depressing go nowhere farce of an 'investigation'. Even Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have written a book admitting its lengthy list of failings.

    There are so many oddities, so may unanswered questions. The molten metal under the debris of the twin towers and WTC 7 is one such unexplained oddity. We know that burning jet fuel can't burn at hot enough temperatures to melt the steel frame of the building. We know that whatever else that would have been burning couldn't have burnt hot enough to melt the steel, so what did? And why was it still molten weeks after the attacks?

    Why did the towers fall so fast? What caused steel beams to be flung sideways many of them embedding into nearby buildings? The furthest was found around 500 feet away from the twin towers. How can a building pancaking down on itself fall at such speed whilst firing huge steel beams sideways?

    How did every steel support column in WTC 7 give up at the exact same time causing a perfect collapse again at great speed? Why did Larry Silverstein claim in reference to building 7 that they had to 'pull it' later claiming he meant 'pull the firemen from the building' even though he said pull 'it' not pull 'them'. And there were no firemen in the building to be 'pulled' anyway.

    Why did the Bush regime fail to act on the numerous warnings they were given? Why did they claim they had no idea that terrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings when there had been a previous failed terrorist plot using this exact scenario. It even targeted the WTC? And US government agencies had run drills involving flying planes into buildings. And on 9/11 itself Cheney was in charge of several drills some of which involved hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings.

    Why did Bush and Cheney appoint themselves heads of NORAD several months before 9/11? This was the first time in its history that civilians were in charge of this military agency putting Cheney directly in charge of NORAD on the day of the attacks. And then why was NORAD so slow to respond to the attacks. It was almost two hours from the first hijacking to Flight 93 crash and yet no military planes managed to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft. I wouldn't expect planes to be being shot out of the sky but I would expect military planes to get along side, check out the situation and perhaps try to force the planes off course.

    And what orders were transportation secretary Norman Mineta referring to when he stated to the 9/11 Commission:

    " During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" " ?

    And how did Bush' secret service agents know Bush was safe in that classroom? If they had no idea what was going on then they would have had to assume the President of the United States was a target. How did they know a plane wasn't about to impact into the school from the nearby airport? Or that some other attack wasn't about to happen? And what about the safety of the children in that classroom? Cheney stated that when the attacks started he was grabbed and immediately taken to the underground bunker in the White House. Why was Bush not immediately taken somewhere safe?

    And if Norman Mineta's testimony is true then why weren't the Pentagon, the White House, Capitol Hill, etc evacuated?

    And why did ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad have $100,000 wired to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta? This directly connects the 9/11 attacks to the Pakistani government and the ISI which itself is heavily connected to the CIA. And so the list goes on.

    There are many theories that have been explained, many questions that have been answered and obviously there are many idiots pushing ridiculous theories. But there are a great many questions that have not been answered in in that vacuum theories appear. It's not crazy, it's inevitable.
Sign In or Register to comment.