Loose Change

[Skyler]

I just watched this documentary piece at a friends and I have to say it's very impressive. It makes Fahrenheit 9/11 look bad as it is imo better produced with less money and raises far more shocking questions.

Yes, it's another documentary about 9/11. However, I recommend you all watch it as I don't think you will view the events of that day in the same way again.

There are questions raised in Loose Change that could easily be answered and proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the American administration, yet they refuse to do so. There is no valid reason for them to refuse as it makes them look very bad.

Anyway I will add the links and let you check it out. I don't believe anyone has posted about this before and I did search before posting


http://www.loosechange911.com/ - Official Loose Change website.

Now, they have a trailer on their site and DVD's/CD's to buy. I will not add a direct torrent link to the post for fear of CoC breakage! However, most of the usual torrent sites carry a DVDRip with all the extras on very good trackers

Alternatively a lower quality version of the whole thing is available on Google Video if you search there.

My advice is go the torrent route rather than Google Video.


As for my comments on the documentary.. I'm pretty shocked to think that people are capable of such things. I am also pretty convinced that there have been a great deal of lies surrounding the events of that day.

Final note, this isn't just some Michael Moore Bush bashing documentary and actually hardly mentions Bush at all. It focuses on the facts, raises a lot of questions and all while using publicly available information.

 

[old.user4556]

I'll give this a spin, but I hope it's not as big a fantasy as another conspiracy website that claimed that the planes were infact holograms and that missiles were fired into the buildings (using some of the reasons cited in this programme).

 

[Sar]

Think it's ok to link it, as I think it was upped to GV by the guys that made it.

 

[old.user4556]

Watched most of it, it's all very interesting but I can't help but feel it's taking a lot of circumstancial, half-truth "looking for foul play" opinions and putting them altogether.

I'm not watched it all the way yet, but what happened to the guy who died on the first flight into WTC1? the guy who wrote or co-wrote Frasier? Where is he now? Where are all the other passengers now?

So far, there are some fundamentals that haven't been addressed.

 

[Tom]

Its a load of utter arse. Seen it before, what makes me laugh is how they dont comprehend that a pancaking building would have to force the air out of the windows. Controlled demolition.....lol.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

It deserves no more respect than Moon Hoax theories.

 

[old.user4556]

Yes, the pancaking building forcing air, that's what I thought.

Additionally, the building twisting or the steel beems distorting as it collapsed would have broken windows (i'd imagine) allowing dust/smoke to escape.

But Tom, I've always thought ever since i watched it live on TV on that very day that they collapsed awfully fast in a very controlled way.

And what about the cell phones not working? I thought that too when they said people made cell phone calls .. "but the phones wouldn't have worked that high?". I assumed that I was wrong, but i wasn't.

As my dad says, wherever there is mystery; roguery is never far away.

 

[Tom]

The plane that had the phone calls I believe had phones in the armrests.

As for the collapse of the building, the WTC towers were of a rather interesting construction. Much of the strength of the towers was contained in a small area known as the core. The rest was around the outside. While this design gave rise to offices with loads of space and no walls, it wasn't really that great at stopping a fire. If the planes had struck a conventional tower, its reckoned that it wouldn't have fallen down.

The linky gives more info. At the end of the day, who would you believe - engineers with answers, or internet authors with questions?

 

[Skyler]

Well I wouldn't dismiss what Loose Change brought up. There are a lot of unanswered questions there..

If there were indeed phonecalls, why was only one tape released, they have transcripts and say they have recordings of many others... not released, why?

You don't think it's funny some of the fireman on the scene say they found 3 black box recorders and that the FBI played some of the information from these recorders to certain family members of the victims, on the condition of non disclosure of course. Then at other times deny they found any of the recorders at all?

Explain the wreckage at the base of the towers when nothing hit them? What are all those extra explosions? You can visually see some other suspicious things as the towers fall down.

Why did the second tower collapse first?

Two huge towers, designed to take the impact of a large jet flying into the side of them collapse after around 1hour of fire at higher floors.. I'm not saying I completely believe that this was all fabricated, but there are many questions here that need answers..

Of course then you have the Pentagon fiasco. In no way did a large commercial jet fly into the side of that building. The hole is too small, there is no debris. Those engines would have easily gone through a concrete wall at 600mph, if the FBI expects us to all believe that a far weaker part (the nose) traveled perfectly through all those concrete walls to punch a wreckage free hole on the other side. Then surely the 6 tonne hunks of metal that were the engines would have gone far further.

There were many CCTV cameras trained on the exact place that this hole appeared. We know they were recording at the time and we know there are tapes. Confiscated by FBI, people who saw them are not allowed to speak about them.

They clearly don't have a problem about releasing a badly angled piece of footage attempting to show the accident. Where is the plane? I don't see a 150ft long airliner.. I don't see much at all.

They could prove what happened by releasing one of the other better tapes, why haven't they?

Oh and what of the fact that 9 of the highjackers are still alive? Can they hijack by remote control?

The best one by far is where the FBI says the 4 black boxes cannot be recovered, but one of the hijackers passport escaped the impact and raging inferno that followed and flew down to the city streets where they found it.

There are many things in that which make me think.. "hmm" and wonder about the truth. I can't say what happened, but there are an awful lot of things which point towards deceit. If he'd just fluttered on with some Michael Moore style stuff about a few single people being caught up with Saudi's and all the Saudi money protecting terrorists and stuff then yeah it feels more like it's engineered to show corruption.

Either way, it's a good watch

 

[old.user4556]

There is a lot of cloak and dagger surrounding it, the Pentagon incident really is quite laughable.

 

[Tom]

Well I wouldn't dismiss what Loose Change brought up. There are a lot of unanswered questions there..

If there were indeed phonecalls, why was only one tape released, they have transcripts and say they have recordings of many others... not released, why?

Probably because the families don't want them released.

You don't think it's funny some of the fireman on the scene say they found 3 black box recorders and that the FBI played some of the information from these recorders to certain family members of the victims, on the condition of non disclosure of course. Then at other times deny they found any of the recorders at all?

source? And how many firemen know what a black box recorder looks like?

Explain the wreckage at the base of the towers when nothing hit them? What are all those extra explosions? You can visually see some other suspicious things as the towers fall down.

The wreckage in the lobby? I walked around Manchester's Royal Exchange building a few days after the bomb hit. Even though it wasn't really anywhere close to the bomb, the blast had moved its way around every corridor, flinging debris anywhere it cared to choose, down every single corridor in the building.

There were many lift shafts in the towers, and there are eyewitness reports of lifts being slammed into the basement, dust and flames exiting the liftshaft doors.

Why did the second tower collapse first?

Hit lower down, more weight on top, more load for the damaged structure.

Two huge towers, designed to take the impact of a large jet flying into the side of them collapse after around 1hour of fire at higher floors.. I'm not saying I completely believe that this was all fabricated, but there are many questions here that need answers..

Designed to take the largest jet at the time, flying at low speed, lost in fog. Not to take an even bigger jet (for instance, the 747 wasn't even ready when the towers were designed) flying at warp speed and almost full of fuel. Many engineers have mentioned how well the structures withstood the damage, considering their open plan design and lack of inherent fire resistance.

Of course then you have the Pentagon fiasco. In no way did a large commercial jet fly into the side of that building. The hole is too small, there is no debris. Those engines would have easily gone through a concrete wall at 600mph, if the FBI expects us to all believe that a far weaker part (the nose) traveled perfectly through all those concrete walls to punch a wreckage free hole on the other side. Then surely the 6 tonne hunks of metal that were the engines would have gone far further.

Aircraft are made from lightweight aluminium. If you've ever been on a flight and watched the wings flex, you'll know there isn't really anything to them. The wall was re-inforced, and blast resistant - not impact resistant.

The pictures we mostly see are ones taken after the outer wall collapsed - earlier photographs clearly show the damage caused by the wingspan of the aircraft. The wings would have cantilevered into the airframe, and continued through the building. There are many photographs freely available which show parts of the aircraft, engines, and undercarriage.

Also, this crash which happened at a much lower speed, shows how little of an aircraft can remain after impact.

There were many CCTV cameras trained on the exact place that this hole appeared. We know they were recording at the time and we know there are tapes. Confiscated by FBI, people who saw them are not allowed to speak about them.

Source?

They clearly don't have a problem about releasing a badly angled piece of footage attempting to show the accident. Where is the plane? I don't see a 150ft long airliner.. I don't see much at all.

You wouldn't expect to on a time-lapse security camera, especially if the aircraft was moving as quickly as thought.

They could prove what happened by releasing one of the other better tapes, why haven't they?

For the same reason that NASA don't try to explain away the moon hoax lot - because its a waste of time, and who is to say there is any clearer footage anyway?

Oh and what of the fact that 9 of the highjackers are still alive? Can they hijack by remote control?

The best one by far is where the FBI says the 4 black boxes cannot be recovered, but one of the hijackers passport escaped the impact and raging inferno that followed and flew down to the city streets where they found it.

Along with lots of other debris, clearly visible in many thousands of photographs available on the internet.

There are many things in that which make me think.. "hmm" and wonder about the truth. I can't say what happened, but there are an awful lot of things which point towards deceit. If he'd just fluttered on with some Michael Moore style stuff about a few single people being caught up with Saudi's and all the Saudi money protecting terrorists and stuff then yeah it feels more like it's engineered to show corruption.

Either way, it's a good watch

For me, the interest stopped when the video suggested that the planes fired missles into the building 1 frame before impact, and when they failed to understand the physics of compressed air and pancaking structures.

 

[ECA]

The plane in pentagon thing is a laugh, theres a google video or youtube, showing an old fighter jet being flown into a concrete wall. Literally only the wingtips survive, the rest of the plane is atomized.

The wreckage in the lobby? the core structure ( go checkout how the building was build ) was damaged, jet fuel and random mashed building stuff down elevator shaft = teh damage.

Most of it is complete rubbish.

It doesn't even concentrate on _one_ theory.
The building was missiled and then blown up? why not just blow it the fuck up?

What about all the passengers on the planes, its too hard to "dissapear" several hundred people, some of whom well known.

As per this type of tripe no counter-arguments are shown and actual evidence is taken out of countext ( eg seismographs etc. ).


Personally speaking I can well imagine more terrorist incidents occuring on planes.
I travel regularly with stuff that sets off the airport metal detectors and the amount of examination they get is pretty laughable.
That said I guess sexy white people are not prime suspects

 

[old.user4556]

I must also admit I don't know who or what to believe anymore, although I know that when I eat a juicy steak that it's really the Matrix telling me it's juicy and divine.

But that aside, i'm just not sure.

 

[Tom]

BTW Skyler it wasn't a personal attack, I just enjoy a good debate. I really should use more smilies

 

[Skyler]

No offence taken Tom, I posted it to get peoples opinions on it and to share it amongst everybody

I believe the Security Camera thing was covered in FH911 and has been written in news stories before. Things to do with employee's from the hotel being silenced by the FBI and the tapes disappearing without any trace. The FBI did seize all security tapes.

One of the locations of the cameras in question was shown in this particular video, from a traffic camera.. from my memory I believe the camera was pretty much realtime and looked right at the side of the Pentagon that suffered an impact.

Also where did they mention about a plane shooting missiles and then impacting into the building?

Yes, a small fighter plane flying into a concrete wall might obliterate most of the plane, but we are talking very different sizes here and likely different speeds.

There is not even a scratch on the walls where two 6 tonne steel/titanium engines impacted at up to 600mph (I don't know the exact speed). Those two objects are the most likely to puncture holes and the most likely to burrow themselves further into the structure. Why is there no trace of them?

I believe they said the hole was around 16ft wide, I don't recall a plane that large being only 16ft wide. Where is the mark from the tail section impact? I mean surely that would also impact given that the main fuselage smashed through multiple reinforced concrete walls to create a very neat small puncture mark on the other side, with no wreckage.

What about the claim that the entire plane and contents were vaporised on impact? That is a lie and I don't need to do anything to prove it.

If the plane was vaporised on impact in the fireball (not really possible or likely) then what smashed through multiple reinforced walls to create a neat circular puncture on the innermost wall?

For their claim about that to be correct then their other claim that it was vaporised is proven wrong. Has to be one or the other.

Add things like that to the fact it happened to be the least populated area of the Pentagon, just remade and all that. All the security tapes covering it seized by FBI, only a few frames of the worst possible angle was ever released. Even those few frames show that no 150ft long aircraft came through it's field of view.

There was another small flash movie covering the Pentegon thing. Using the footage released by the FBI they showed a small missile shaped object caused the impact. It's a dodgy quality picture and you can't be sure it's a missle or what infact it is. But there is one thing that it does show very clearly, it's not a 747 or any large plane like it.

As for Flight 93, where is it? It crash landed on grass and careered into some tree's. Where is the wreckage? There was not a trace of anything there bar a small clean piece of fuselage which could have been from anything.

Yes, it could have all been vaporised too! (heh)

But then look at the aftermath of many crashes that occured at other times, every single one offers something which clearly shows "a plane crashed here". Pretty much every single one has a huge tail section and large parts of the wings laying around. This is even more likely in open space when you crash at an angle. There is simply not enough energy in the Kerosine carried in the wings to vaporise the tail section with no trace.

A lot of the things the video says are small things that may or may not be what it implies. However, if you string all of them together, to happen on the same day with such organisation it starts to look pretty suspect.

Two large commercial airliners vaporised on impact in two seperate crashes. That's suspect enough in itself if you look at the melting points of each element in question. Steel and Titanium melt at sustained heats well above that which ignited Kerosine can reach. So tell me again how they vaporise?

Of course there is plenty of dodgy things involving people in that video and more connections are made in FH911. Things like the pilot of one of the planes flying into the WTC practiced that kind of act for the military some time ago. You just can't write that stuff.

How all the companies associated with the things are all interconnected with the government and their friends. Is it just them having their fingers in every pocket possible or is it a dodgy series of connections?

As for 200 people disappearing, that's pretty easy to achieve. If they fired a cruise missile at the Pentagon then I'm sure they can eradicate 200 people.

Yes, it's very hard to believe people would do that, but it's hard to believe a lot of things that some people do in the world, yet they still happen.

 

[Tom]

I guess what rankles about this video is the way in which its put together.

Onscreen quotes, with no date to reference them.

'Shocking' commentary from people on the day (sounded like a missile etc)

Lack of understanding of basic physics (wtc collapse)


But mostly I believe these theories result from people's basic lack of ability to comprehend that amazing and shocking stuff sometimes happens. I think many of the authors of such material just can't comprehend how their country was caught napping. If the July bombings had happened in the US rather than here, you'd see a million websites crop up disclaiming it. Whereas we, who are rather more accustomed to terrorism and war, just get on with it.

Watch Oliver Stone's JFK - good film yes, hard hitting - but so full of lies its unwatchable once you know.

 

[Tom]

Also, why does it identify components from various aircraft in the wreckage, and then suggest that its a cruise missile?

Why mention the lamposts that get torn/bent from the ground, when its quite visible to anyone that they're hollow and therefore not like the concrete ones you normally see?

Why not give any mention to the fact that the wings would cantilever into the body (which would force the mass of the aircraft into that small hole)?

Why compare a plane ramming into a building with a plane ramming into a mountainside? They may as well compare sand and water.

Secondary explosions at the pentagon? They never seen what happens when a building is on fire?

"Why are they so afraid" he asks, well presumably the government isn't afraid of the odd nutcase.

Why mention fire damage to WTC7, but not the severe structural damage from falling debris?

Why compare the Empire State building with the WTC, when they have entirely different designs using different internal configurations?



Its total, utter bumfluff - and I haven't even watched all of it.

 

[Paradroid]

Alex Jones' Martial Law - 911: Rise of the Police State is pretty good. He goes to NY during the Republican convention (just after Bush was re-elected), and documents the police state, whilst analysing the 911 attacks at ground zero. He doesn't just go into why the towers shouldn't have collapsed, but the people behind the scenes (and more besides). There's one scene where he stumbles across Michael Moore in the demonstration (who's being idolised by the crowds), Moore refused to give an interview and walked away saying he would be "un-American" to raise some of the questions Alex is asking.

The buildings free-fell (no resistance), exactly how they're designed to be demolished, and right into their own footprint. Fire supposedly melted/softened/whatever the towers structure (for the first time ever...also in less than 2 hours...and twice on the same day), but you can clearly see people standing in the gaping holes made by the planes. Firemen reported the fires were almost out (there's live audio of that). The air force were running carbon-copy simulations of this exact same type of attack during the real attack. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, ran security at the WTC on 11/9/2001. Larry Silverstein originally owned building 7 (the mysterious one that was "pulled") but earlier in 2001 he bought the entire complex - he invested $200M but his insurance claim was for $7 Billion (an 11 day re-trial jury returned a decision in his favour, with a $3.5 Billion payout). Not exactly small change.

Discuss.

 

[Paradroid]

Its a load of utter arse. Seen it before, what makes me laugh is how they dont comprehend that a pancaking building would have to force the air out of the windows. Controlled demolition.....lol.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

It deserves no more respect than Moon Hoax theories.

It's awfully nice that the good folks over at popular mechanics put up a convincing debunking-the-hoax "story", but the sad thing is that their story is just that, a story. It's widely known that major Guilliani shipped all the WTC evidence off to China before anyone could investigate. So when they say their "investigation revealed" (under the laughable banner of "FACT") ... and then it goes into speculative detail ... it's all just stories, it's all theory.

Demolition is a much simpler explanation, the eye-witness reports, the video footage, all point towards demolition. The idea that it was the plane and its fuel is much harder to reconcile with the evidence, and seems much more far-fetched.

The popular mechanics references to all this is, FEMA !?! ffs, doesn't exactly give you confidence does it?, and the NIST? Oh, wait! They're under the Department of Commerce! Sounds official.

Tenner says it was a demolition!

 

[Will]

Just a small point....the old video of a jet fighter hitting a concrete wall and vapourising was a specially kind of concrete designed to take that kind of impact, to be used in the walls of nuclear reactors. Not standard concrete and rebar.

 

[Wij]

It's awfully nice that the good folks over at popular mechanics put up a convincing debunking-the-hoax "story", but the sad thing is that their story is just that, a story. It's widely known that major Guilliani shipped all the WTC evidence off to China before anyone could investigate. So when they say their "investigation revealed" (under the laughable banner of "FACT") ... and then it goes into speculative detail ... it's all just stories, it's all theory.

Demolition is a much simpler explanation, the eye-witness reports, the video footage, all point towards demolition. The idea that it was the plane and its fuel is much harder to reconcile with the evidence, and seems much more far-fetched.

The popular mechanics references to all this is, FEMA !?! ffs, doesn't exactly give you confidence does it?, and the NIST? Oh, wait! They're under the Department of Commerce! Sounds official.

Tenner says it was a demolition!

Yes, and nothing whatsoever to do with those huge planes that slammed into the side at wtf speed. Pure coincidence.

 

[ECA]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1556575484235720126

500mph fighter jet flying into concrete wall.

"oh noez, its not hot enough to atomize a plane"

bollocks.

 

[Trem]

If the attack had happened in another country we would not get all this conspiracy bollocks. It is very interesting but typically American.

Why are all the alien abductions always in the deep South of America I wonder, never reported or mentioned in China or Russia or any other country infact.

I have downloaded it and I will watch it.

 

[rynnor]

If there were indeed phonecalls, why was only one tape released, they have transcripts and say they have recordings of many others... not released, why?

Thats the easiest one - a load of transcripts of people saying goodbye to their loved ones before their imminent deaths - I think these people deserve some privacy over their final moments - plus the relatives would no doubt sue anyone who released them.

You don't think it's funny some of the fireman on the scene say they found 3 black box recorders and that the FBI played some of the information from these recorders to certain family members of the victims, on the condition of non disclosure of course. Then at other times deny they found any of the recorders at all?

I think theres generally a couple of black box recorders in each plane - the stuff on them was probably pretty upsetting, as to the denials you have to remember that the FBI is not a single person but a large organisation - not everyone is going to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

I still havent seen an explanation that is anything as likely as what is widely reported to have happened and what I witnessed on the live feeds at the time. Occams razor suggests this is the truth rather than these silly conspiracy theories.

The only situation I have ever read about where a conspiracy is more likely than the reported truth was JFK's assasination - theres no way that one sniper killed him unless you ignore the whole study of ballistics.

 

[Will]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1556575484235720126

500mph fighter jet flying into concrete wall.

"oh noez, its not hot enough to atomize a plane"

bollocks.

As I said above, thats a special reinforced wall, designed specially to take that sort of impact. I remember seeing that video on Tommorows World.

 

[throdgrain]

WHAT a load of BOLLOCKS!
People really should start doing something a bit more useful

 

[xane]

Yes, a small fighter plane flying into a concrete wall might obliterate most of the plane, but we are talking very different sizes here and likely different speeds.

There is not even a scratch on the walls where two 6 tonne steel/titanium engines impacted at up to 600mph (I don't know the exact speed). Those two objects are the most likely to puncture holes and the most likely to burrow themselves further into the structure. Why is there no trace of them?.

The "small fighter plane" in the video is an F4 Phantom II, which has two General Electric J79 engines which are 1m x 5.3m in size and weigh 3,800 lbs each, the engines are mounted side by side in the fuselage.

The Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon has a choice of four types of engine, probably not dissimilar to each other, one type is the Pratt & Whitney PW2043, each are 2m x 3.5m and weigh 7,300 lbs. They are mounted separately under the wings.

You can say that the two engines of the F4 are roughly the same size and shape as one engine off the 757. So why do you suppose that the F4 engines get atomized along with the rest of the plane yet the 757 engine needs to "punch a big hole" ?

 

[Whipped]

Does that plane get "atomized" though. All you see is the impact, not the aftermath and possible reckage. And as Will said, that was a "special" wall.

 

[rynnor]

Does that plane get "atomized" though. All you see is the impact, not the aftermath and possible reckage. And as Will said, that was a "special" wall.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Pentagon is not a 'hardened' target - with it being the heart of their Intelligence community its not going to be your average office block eh?

Found this on it - http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/renovation.html

 

[old.user4556]

Makes me think of Flight TWA 800.

It just seems that a lot of highly public events/tragedys are all "conspiracies" - everyone really wants to believe that people died because of a cover up and that we're being brainwashed by our own government. Kennedy assasination, moon landings, 9/11, TWA 800, Shuttle Challenger, Shuttle Columbia.

Take something like Shuttle Columbia which was proven to be foam impacting the wing on take off; you'll still find shite on the internet about "OMGZ, WAZ IT SHOT DOWN?".

 

[old.user4556]

Read this for shite:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/destruction_of_the_trade_centers.htm

That's gotta be up there with the extremist shite i've ever read.