Not sure if this video has ever been posted here, but it's worth your time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change&pr=goog-sl What are your thoughts?
I saw this video for the first time last night, funny it popped up here the next morning. One thing everybody should be able to realize, whether or not you believe some assertions made there, is that there are a LOT of unanswered questions and we're all owed an explanation. I hope I'm alive when the truth is finally discovered in some old file cabinet in 2049.
I wouldn't count on it. The file cabinet is buried with the info on Kennedy's assassination and Jimmy Hoffa.
its a very well made film which raises ALOT of questions that have not been answered. alex jones documentary 9/11: rise of the police state is another worth checking out if you already havent. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661 speaking of alex jones, cspan has been showing a panel discussion from his 9/11 truth conference in l.a. last month. it was originally scheduled to air once, but its been on 2-3 times a day all weekend. it will be on again tomorrow at 7.
heh, weird. i just finished watching it a few minutes ago and was just about to post it on here, but i see someone beat me to it. to be honest, i've always been skeptical of 9/11. especially the pentagon crash. and after watching this thing, i am convinced that no plane ever crashed into it. i am shocked, to be honest. everybody should watch this documentary. the government is f'ed up.
The movie is pretty viral. Other conspiracy theorists claim that the movie (and in plane sight) has too many holes and could be a cia disinformation ploy to discredit the 9/11 conspiracy movement. The presentation is slick but there are several logical inconsistencies. http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html Both sites are considered very thorough. It takes a lot of patience and personal research to sift through these sites.
I watched the DVD a few months ago. The thing that puzzles me the most is why did World Trade Center 7 collapse?
Because it was hit by debris and burned for hours and hours.. there was no effort to fight the fire, the building was evacuated.
didnt want to start a new thread as it seems relevant to this topic - cspan will be rebroadcasting their coverage of the 9/11 truth conference at 5:00 central standard time today (tuesday).
Everyone who watched "Loose Change", and the others films like it should try to get through these two links as well. Just for the sake of balance. http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
People who believe this are as misguided as the groups they are criticizing. The get all their information off nut-job web sites and movies and ignore all the real facts. It is indisputable that passanger planes flew into the WTC and the Pentagon. There are legitimate explanations for every conspiracy theory (read the real facts) The real wrong that happen was the abuse of power after the fact. If you want real change don't look silly by claiming that remote control planes hit the buildings or that explosives were hidden in the WTC --- focus on the fact that Bush has created a quagmire in Iraq with no plan on getting out.
I read through that entire first link right after watching the movie (someone linked me to Maddox's article about it, which sucked btw by maddox standards).. there were some good counter-points made in it, but the large amount of name calling and annoying assertions of "speculation" without any other point really discredit him. He would do well to take a cue from the creators of the film he hates and keep the attitude to a minimum. Also, there are line-by-line rebuttals to each of those sites posted on the loosechange forums.
These movies are the worst way to find out what really happened. And physical evidence is also a bad way to determine what happened. If anyone has carefully studied the Kennedy assasination you will learn this plus you will understand that most of what was reported in the initial months following did not tell the story. To understand why WTC7 fell and why Norad failed and get an understanding of what the holes are in the official story you have to look beyond the various stories and examine the 'holes' in light of more extensive research. If you believe the official story or the Kean Commission you haven't researched enough. If you believe every 'conspiracy' story you aren't being careful enough in your research. I would highly recommend starting by reading the book "Crossing the Rubicon" my Michael Ruppert. I have not found one person who has read the entire book who still believes the official story. I was a huge George Bush supporter who saw him as the greatest Christian president of our time until I read that one book. And it is his association with Dick Cheney that is disturbing. BTW- the book does have some (very slight) political slant, but just look past that and carefully examine the case presented.
I find some of these theories rather silly. But I don't think the book is, or should be, closed on what happened that day, and what led up to the events. This is what troubles me: Who benefitted from 9/11? Who reaped the rewards of national (and international) crisis? Whose power actually increased because of the attack on the WTC? And that's what makes me suspicious. Read the membership list at the bottom of the page as well... Add this to the fact the Bush Administration entered office with a split between the electoral and popular vote (and a great deal of controversy). Earlier Presidents who had lost the popular vote but still landed in the seat of power (Adams, Hayes, Harrison) were complete lameducks who failed to accomplish any significant part of their agendas while in office. These earlier examples may or may not be relevant (this has only happened 4 times), but they point to the fact that a President hardly has a mandate when elected under such circumstances.The Bush Administration didn't have any real influence until September 11th. The question then becomes: How far would these powerful men be willing to go in order to realize their objectives? This statement is going to sound inconsequential to some and watered-down to others. But the facts remain: A group of powerful men, all guided by the same ideology, is in power. They recognize that "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor," the process of transformation, of promoting "American global leadership" is going to take a very long time. They only have eight years at the seat of power (though one can question how relevant political office is to their exercise in reshaping the world - it might be exceedingly useful, but not absolutely necessary). In the end, like most of these arguments, it comes down to: How far do you believe powerful men are prepared to go to realize their goals?
