I recently read about Loose Change and decided to download a copy since I'm a huge documentary fan. A free documentary about 9-11? I'm there!
I downloaded the movie with BitTorrent and burned it to a DVD a few days ago. I finally got around to watching it last night, and I must say I'm impressed....and disappointed at the same time.
Loose Change is a small, low budget documentary about the events of September 11, 2001. It looks at each of the attacks in our nation, from the pentagon to the WTC to flight 93 and examines each one in detail.
Now I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for what I'm about to say, but I need to say it. I don't honestly believe that the events of 9-11 happened the way that we have been told. I'm still not convinced to this day that any plane hit the pentagon.
This is the type of thing the film covers. If a plane hit the pentagon, then why was there little debris? The answer was that the jet fuel completely destroyed the plane and the bodies and such. Sure, there was a bit of debris around the pentagon, but as the film points out, the small airplane parts that were found would not be part of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon. Nevermind the fact that the lawn of the pentagon where the plane supposedly hit was far from damaged.
I know, I know. I sound like a conspiracy theorist. But, watch the footage that was released from the security cameras around the pentagon during the attack, and then call me a conspiracy theorist. It's quite clear that a plane did not hit the pentagon.
Anyway, the film then goes on to the WTC and the attack there. We get numerous perspectives and video of the attack, each shot as sickening as the rest. But then we also get eyewitness accounts about explosions in the WTC after being hit by the planes. These explosions seem to be what caused the buildings to fall, not the fires from the aircraft strikes.
Could there have been bombs in the WTC? I don't know. Loose Change certainly tries to make the viewer think that, and the evidence is certainly there....I just don't want to believe that's what happened.
Overall, Loose Change is a good film. As I mentioned, I was disappointed and that was because of the narrator. Everything starts off quite well, with the narration being straight and to the point. The narrator describes each fact and piece of evidence perfectly. Then, in about the last half hour or so, the narration becomes more and more angry and certainly does take away from the credability.
It is worth a view though. You can either download the film, order it on DVD or you can always watch it on google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Give it a try, and post your thoughts.
Note:
I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just thought this is a film that needs to be talked about. I do hope that we can have a civil and honest discussion.
Skaboi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But then we also get eyewitness accounts
> about explosions in the WTC after being hit by the
> planes. These explosions seem to be what caused
> the buildings to fall, not the fires from the
> aircraft strikes.
>
I was watching the news when the first building fell and 'knew' it was falling even before the on-camera, live reported did. My first thought, and comment to my wife, was "there was explosives in that building."
I'm no demolitions expert, but I have studied up on demolition engineering A LITTLE bit and the patterns sure looked familiar, even to my untrained eye.
That said, I have also read the 'official' engineering report about what caused the buildings to fall, and it does seem plausible. Heat failure of the clips that tie beam to piers caused floor collapse which initiated subsequent floor collapses.
What is the right answer? Who knows. But I will mention one thing. There's a guy, a very vocal guy, out there claiming this and that about the WTC damage and collapse that has NO CLUE what he is talking about regarding thermodynamics and engineering. He's a divinity expert (a very knowledgable man in his field), but I've read his writings and he just does not understand the physical science involved. A lot of people on the 'Net cite him as authoritative, but he is just plain wrong in some of his assumptions and conclusions. Sorry, I cannot recall his name.
My biggest problem with cover-ups on the scale required for something like this (no matter who you might assume put explosives into the WTC) is (1) since the absence of any evidence to deny them is taken as prima facie evidence of support, they are largely un-falsifyable which renders them pseudo-science and (2) the number of people who would know is just too big. Many small-time crimes are solved because someone (of a very small circle of acquaintance) talks; on the scale of a large conspiracy, it just seems very, very unlikely that everyone could keep it all under wraps.
Just my $0.02
Ulthar,
I'm not disagreeing by any means. Like I said, I don't have any clue what would have caused the towers to fall but it did seem to happen so...."neatly". I know that's not a good word to use in this context, but it's the best one that fits.
Everything surrounding 9-11 is so strange, and there are many questions left unanswered. I didn't see the events firsthand. The day it happened, I was on my way to my first class of the morning at college. If I'm not mistaken, it was The Study Of The Old Testament.
Anyway, I walked in building and everyone was talking. I walked into my class and people were crying and such. I finally asked a girl I knew fairly well what had happened, and she told me that the pentagon had been attacked and that both of the WTCs had fallen. I hadn't heard anything about it earlier as I had been listening to a cd on my drive to the school. Now, I keep my radio on NPR most of the time.
Most everything I've seen about the attacks, has been after the fact. I've seen the footage that was taken during the attacks, and I've seen the news coverage since then. I've pretty much seen only what has been allowed to be seen. I believe if we had more footage/information, such as the footage from a hotel and gas station near the pentagon (which was confiscated), then we could have a better idea of what actually happened.
But, like you said, it's quite doubtful that so many people would be involved and yet none would talk. But, there are just too many "maybe" questions for me. I have a feeling that in 10-15 years, some type of information will come out that will shed a bit of light on the subject.
All the issues should be brought forward if there is reasonable questions of doubt and "yes" it is the goverments job to answer all the strange questions they keep being raised about 911. The goverment opens themselves to conspiracy theories by not answering the bigger questions. Why is it that they can't acknowledge all the discrepancies around the event, so the people will be happy. The goverment doesn't even seem concerned about these theories and is so arrogant as to not answer these questions in an intelligent manner to silence the "crazies". People have the right to ask questions and to be given answers by our public officials. It's to bad these people are brushed off as wacko's first without having the details explained to them.
They only explain surface questions without answering the surrounding supporting info that is also part of the question. Naturally I'm on the side of the U.S. goverment no matter what, but nobody likes to be made fool of. I'd rather see straight forward world conquest than covert action that injures or kills the innocent and leaving people in doubt all the time. It you want to stop Nuclear proliforation just do it. If you want to conquer the world just do it. Don't come up with these lame excuses to get the people to act.
All the "horrendous" things of the past happened by fake attacks. Burning of Rome blamed on the Christians, Burning the Reichstad by the Nazi's, Tomkin Bay in Vietnam, FDR and Pearl Harbor, Battleship Maine for the beginning of the Spanish/American war, and even to who fired the first shot during the Revolutionary War.
One World Goverment should happen and will happen. Who will do it and when will it happen?
I have no problem with world conquest. I just don't like people individually profiting by these events that really lead to no where.
None of us really know because we are fed info by polititians and media.
Some interesting theories and discussion here.
By the way, why was the documentary titled, "Loose Change"?
The person who goes around believing the official story is just as "bad" as the one who has a few questions about the event. Keep your mind open and the truth will eventually come out if we find that the official story isn't true.
If true the whole thing might be for our own good or someone is just trying to make a profit. Naturally people like to feel like they know what's going on.
Hopefully the rumors are not true. Who would want them to be true? People do have the right to ask.
Not sure about the title.
The story is that the director was writing a film about a group of friends who find that the 9-11 attacks were a lie and that it was a massive coverup.
During the writing of the film he accumulated crap loads of video and information that ended up making him think that his fictional script might actually be true. He ended up scrapping the script and made the documentary instead, but kept the original title. I'm sure that the "Loose Change" title would have played out in the script.
Switch the title around and you've got Change Loose which is what happened on 9-11.
Big change was loosed on the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Maybe that's it.
Scott, I agree 100% with your premise that we all have the right/responsibility to ask questions. But, to play Devil's Advocate, what do you say to a person who sees the evidence and ignores it, just to fit their own agenda?
There are people/groups that would stir up a hornet's nest just to do it, whether the conspiracy were true or not, just for political gain. My point: though your post focuses on those who blindly follow the government's 'version' of the story, there are also those who blindly follow anything other than the government's version of the story.
Peoples motivations are always suspect. Each individual makes decisions not on one thing, but rather on a series of factors including conditioning from home and their social enviroment. From this they make judgement on what is good and bad for themselves. If it works for them they will believe it no matter what the truth is.
For me I can't possibly know the truth of what happened on 911 since I simply wasn't there. We may all one day have to make life and death choices on erroneous facts. That's the nature of the beast.
This brings up an interesting point we were discussing in class a couple of years ago about the digtal medium [effects etc] becoming so realistic that we can't tell true images from fake images.
Without debating the 'conspiracy' itself [I actually didn't know that there was even any doubt to teh Pentagon crash until just now] 9/11 was used as an example, albiet a somewhat extreme one. The question we were asked to ponder was 'did 9/11 really happen? How can you be so sure?' the logic is, did you see it happen with your own eyes, or have you talked to someone you know who saw it? Because what if we got to the stage [and I'm sure we will] when images we are shown are so realistic we can't tell the difference.
This idea has come up in a few different stories, such as Metal Gear Solid 2 the game and in one of the Frank Miller Batman series [Either Dark Knight Returns or Strikes Back] where the President of the USA is actually a digital image, and got elected, despite the fact that nobody had met him: they just assumed that since he was on tv talking up a storm with people that he did exist. Of course this was set in the future, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless.
Do you all exist? I can never know for sure unless I met you: your pictures on frapper could be fake, your entire existence on this board could be a lie, and no-one would be able to tell [although it would explain a few things...]
Now I'm getting a little to metaphysical and a bit crazy, but I gather you all understand my vague point here, and it really is amazing how information manipulation could become a very big tool in the future [not that it isn't already]
Also on another note, did they explain what happened to the plane then, if it didn't hit the Pentagon, what the hell happened to it then?
dean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you all exist? I can never know for sure
> unless I met you: your pictures on frapper could
> be fake, your entire existence on this board could
> be a lie, and no-one would be able to tell
Dean, I fully understand what you're saying as this is something that has often run through my mind too. I did want to comment on this part that I quoted: I so wish my existence was just made up...I do.
For a good debunking on the 9/11 myths, check out the Popular Mechanics article
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
Page 6 deals with the Pentagon.
And there is other evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon: the telephone calls between the passengers on that plane and their families.
Them squirrels are real Odinn7. You can't escape this.......
(http://www.geog.ubc.ca/richmond/city/blevinsdouglassquirrelrnp.jpg)
Scott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Them squirrels are real Odinn7. You can't escape
> this.......
>
>
NO! Get it away, get it away!
In regard to people blindly following one theory or another whether the evidence supports it or not, I've been putting words to something I've noticed for years now; it's still difficult to communicate fully, but, in a nutshell (no squirrel puns intended), people are either too willing to believe an authority figure or too willing to disbelieve an authority figure. As has been mentioned, some people want to believe the government's story as being the only truth regarding 9/11. Some people, not trusting the government, want to disbelieve reports so badly that they will trust only theories that put the blame on the current administration. Reality seldom lies in any one report, even in an eyewitness account. If a building were burning and in danger of collapse, would a person in close proximity to that building be of a mindset to perceive details clearly? Probably not, since he/she would be mostly wanting to get away from the danger. Noises and sights can be exaggerated by fear/anxiety, so that any loud noise becomes "explosives" planted by the government. I've read some of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, including the Popular Mechanics article debunking most of the theories (incidentally, the magazine was bombarded with hate mail after that article, condemning it for being a government stooge and reporting only the party line). Like most of you, I won't claim to know what happened, because I wasn't there. I cannot see the U.S. government destroying the WTC, simply because I can't believe anyone would do that here. I am appalled to hear reports of dictators killing their own people around the world, and I know this sort of thing happens, but I can't see the benefit of murdering thousands of people as happened on that day. Perhaps I am naive, but the possible consequences if the plot were uncovered far outweigh any political agenda. And as ulthar points out, a conspiracy this big would be difficult to cover up; someone would crack and talk if the theories were true.
Whooo, that's a big nutshell. Good thing I'm a big nut. This doesn't cover all that I wanted to say, but if anyone gets through this ramble, I'll be surprised.
Well, told purely from the POV of the mechanics of the towers collapsing, I recommend the Nova documentary Why the Towers Fell (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381710/). It's the official line, but it does a good job of not multiplying entities.
Do I think the current American government would orchestrate the attacks? No, that's monstrous. Do I think they would ignore or cover-up inconsistencies that don't fit the official line? Highly probable. Would they take advantage of the fear and confusion of Americans to further entrench their power base and profit margins? No doubt about it.
Do I think the current American government would orchestrate the attacks? No, that's monstrous. Do I think they would ignore or cover-up inconsistencies that don't fit the official line? Highly probable. Would they take advantage of the fear and confusion of Americans to further entrench their power base and profit margins? No doubt about it.
Man Mofo, that is right on the money. Each person has their own pet example of that last statement: mine is the TSA. What a colossal screw up.
Say for a moment that the conspiracy is more or less true. That they managed the biggest hoax of all-time like that, with such large amounts of evidence supporting it, and in the process caused that much damage and killed about 3,000 people. And despite that, there is still scant evidence it exists and no one has come forward about it.
If that is the case, the group who did it is so immense and influential it is extremely unlikely we'd ever be able to do much of anything about it, except perhaps through blind luck.
If that is the case, the group who did it is so immense and influential it is extremely unlikely we'd ever be able to do much of anything about it, except perhaps through blind luck.
Cue references to about 16,000 bad movie plots. :)
Movie Plot:
Just image the fear level in the highest places if all our goverment officials were compromised through sex rings, so that they have to cooperate, and the fear level of those with pensions and the death threats to families of lifetime public servants. With the goverment being nothing more than a white anglo-saxon mafia and our taxes are simply protection money.
Also who's to say that another goverment didn't set up the attack on 911. Say the Russians, Isreali's, French, Chinese, Saudi's, etc..They pay some Islamic cleric to encite their followers and the cleric gets paid millions by some rouge faction of some goverment.
Fewer than two dozen men (15? I forget) were unable to keep their mouths shut in the Watergate coverup, despite the fact that confession meant toppling a president they were completely loyal to and the fact that jail time was a certainty, as well as loss of face and career. And yet they couldn't keep it covered up for two weeks. Would it really be possible to cover a conspiracy ast large as the WTC "bombing" for this long? Even if it was only the government playing on fears to bolster itself after the attacks (yes, I know this happened, but not to my knowledge in any manner that might truly be called a conspiracy), wouldn't someone become another Deep Throat? Almost certainly. I do not agree with this administration on many points (in this context, I primarily disagree with the whole "Homeland Security" idea that is dragging us down the road toward communism/dictatorship faster than anything in the past century--with the possible exception of our education system, which seems hell-bent on turning out good little worker bees to feed the government/education elite at the expense of free thought). I do not, however, see much evidence for any conspiracy on a b-movie level, as Scott just proposed. At heart, I'm an anarchist (just leave me alone and keep the heck off my lawn, you punks!), albeit one who recognizes the necessity of government and who languishes in the knowledge that without a recognized government, people would quickly become extinct out of sheer belligerence.
Derf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fewer than two dozen men (15? I forget) were
> unable to keep their mouths shut in the Watergate
> coverup, despite the fact that confession meant
> toppling a president they were completely loyal to
> and the fact that jail time was a certainty, as
> well as loss of face and career. And yet they
> couldn't keep it covered up for two weeks. Would
> it really be possible to cover a conspiracy ast
> large as the WTC "bombing" for this long?
Pardon my French but...
No f**kin' way!
I tend to throw all that conspiracy theory s**t right out the window.
The secret could not be kept. Period.
You know it and I know it.
I gotta side with Derf here.
Look at Watergate. These supposed bumblers got caught by a night watchman (one of them I know for certain could have taken care of that situation). Think about it. These "failures" may have served a purpose.
I'm not saying this has happened, but there are ways to control all the key people in any conspiracy.
there are ways to control all the key people in any conspiracy.
Nah. As the Watergate night watchman example helps to demonstrate, you cannot plan/think of everything. There is chance.
Eyewitnesses? You have to control them, too. There were a LOT of people NOT INVOLVED WITH GOVT who witnessed the events of 9/11. This is not Men In Black where someone can just go around erasing everyone's memory.
Conspiracies like this are 'fun' (I guess) to talk about, but the way some people are rabid about it is just disconnected from reality. I said above, and I still believe, that it is fair to ask the questions. But, as good old Jules says, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
Sounds like loose change to me.
"Eyewitnesses? You have to control them, too. There were a LOT of people NOT INVOLVED WITH GOVT who witnessed the events of 9/11."
Many times witnesses simply don't know what they are looking at and when alternatives are reinforced in different ways people tend to believe what they are told because it "makes sense" and works into what fragile or pre-occupied minds can only except.
For people in high power senerios like the ones we have lightly talked about above would simply be a parlor game for them where even the President is a pawn.
"This is not Men In Black where someone can just go around erasing everyone's memory".
And beyond that............ "they" have access to the latest technologies. Who's to say you are even thinking your own thoughts.
Speaking purely in terms of movie plots of course
Okay, nobody look at Scott--he may have his own flashy-thingy (http://www.smileys.ws/smls/erotic/00000014.gif)
I'm not thinking my own thoughts? Alright, who's got my thoughts. I want them back.
(http://www.smileys.ws/smls/sport/00000020.gif)
(http://clicksmilies.com/s0105/trave_abc/smilie_frage.gif)
(http://www.zenapolae.com/files/images/38741502_l.jpg)
i saw the documentary too, and i have to say i beleive every word in it...before this video i was very skeptical about the whole thing, farehnheit 911 didnt really touch that subject, i doubt they'll let it go in theaters if it had as much information as did loose change....for the guy that was criticizing the way it was narrated, dude get a life, it's a documentary, and it soul purpose is to inform people...and your going to have to agree with me when i say it was very informative...every question or doubt you had the video answered it....yes it's true it was definetly a more angry atmosphere at the end...f**k i was angry myself....the bastards did it for money...3,030 casualties, and a thousand more injured....innocent people, if your not angry by that thought, then something is up with you....oh and not to mention the deaths in iraq!!!! all i'm saying is to for one second for people to stop being skeptical and just be open minded..if we let them feed us lies and just keep quiet, and pray that theyre taking care of us...we're just being ignorant....some people dont want to beleive it's true cuz theyre afraid, cuz ignorance is bliss, but in this situation ignorance is death....so all i'm saying is be open-minded.....ok, over....
ps: another small thing that i dont remeber it being brough up in the video..i only saw the second one..but yea...they said there was a s**tload of goldbars underground, under the world trade center..i dont beleive that in 9-11 it was theyre first attempt to get it...do you reacall february 26, 1993...the bombimg of the underground garage by "terrorists"?...