Important new movie about the truth of 9/11

[Dangerman]

This is important. Watch this film.

Loose Change 2nd Edition:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Well

1. This film isn't new. It's been around for more than a year now.

2. This thread should be in the 9/11 forum.

[MrSlayer]

2. This will be moved to the dungeon.

So sorry.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. An important film about aviation...

...that will explain why nineteen brown-skinned (and thus stupid) people could not possibly fly those planes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/

[spoony]

5. Don't call me shirley!

:P Ah, I think I have to go watch that now!

[MonkeyFunk]

4. ooh!

2nd edition! Now with new and improved lies!

[i miss america]

6. I'm easily fooled. Would you be so kind as to point out some of the lies.

Is any of it true?
Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. The major lies and distortions in Loose Change 2: Director's Cut

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-lies-and-deceptions-of-loose.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-lies-and-deceptions-of-loose_15.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-lies-and-deceptions-in-loose.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/top-lies-and-deceptions-in-loose_17.html

For three really easy to understand lies in Loose Change:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/three-easily-understood-lies-in-loose.html

From the last paragraph of that last link:

My point with this post is to show you that Loose Change lies, and lies routinely. It lies deliberately. It lies when it's showing you the truth. The Loosers talk about us being sheeple, they're ignoring the evidence of their own eyes!

[i miss america]

8. Thank you boloboffin. My problem is that the evidence I'm seeing

with my eyes has me intrigued by the points they raised in the "Loose Change" movie. I appreciate the link you provided, and I found it to be most interesting.

However I still don't understand why WTC7 fell. And I don't get how the two towers turned into giant powder clouds as they were collapsing, and before they ever hit the ground. I know the planes did tremendous damage -- but the way all those floors blew out -- well, it must just be my eyes playing tricks on me. It looks to me like a tremendous amount of explosive force occurred in under a dozen seconds.

And that hole in the Pentagon, it seems quite small in the photos before the section collapsed. I've tried, but I still can't understand how such a big plane could have fit so neatly into such a little hole and also so low in the building without leaving marks on the ground.

Boloboffin (or anyone else) you don't have to reply to this if you don't want to and I'm not trying to waste your time. My only reason for raising these questions is that I honestly and desperately want someone to give me some reassurance that our government had nothing to do with what happened on that God awful day.

[AZCat]

9. The problem is...

it's a big jump from "our government had something to do with what happened on September 11th, 2001" to "our government engineered the attacks (through various means promoted by the truth movement)".

I don't think you'd have to go far to find someone who thinks Bush&Co. were in some way responsible for what happened. Finding people who believe in controlled demolition of the towers, fake planes, directed energy weapon strikes - that's probably a little more difficult.

[StrictlyRockers]

10. You have a lot of the same questions I do.

I don't understand why WTC 7 fell. And there is some evidence which implies that they decided to "pull it". To me, "pull it" is a fishy term when used in reference to a building that subsequently falls down in a manner consistent with a controlled demolition.

The videos and pictues don't lie. Something anomalous happened when those towers fell down. That was not a conventionall building collapse by any means, at least to my eyes. I have never seen anything like that before. It was like something from a movie.

The holes in the wall of the Pentagon are also not fitting for a plane of the alleged size. Where are the holes for the engines? The are huge and weigh something like six tons each. I think there is a lot in Loose Change that is deserving of further inquiry... The movie sure raises a lot of good questions.

SR

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Of course you'd

never seen anything like it before. Nobody had, because it simply had never happened before.

I don't know why people feel they should somehow intuitively "know" how a 110 story skyscraper collapses, or what a plane hitting the Pentagon should look like when neither event had ever happened before.

[i miss america]

12. You have a point there, MF. These events were truly out of the ordinary

On the other hand, I do know that the Secret Service should have taken command in that classroom in Sarasota and rushed the president to safety. Why they didn't do that defies all explanation.

And I also know that NORAD should have scrambled fighter jets to intercept. Those pre-planned emergency drills taking place that morning should have been called off instantly. I simply cannot understand how there was such a massive communications failure that this wasn't done.

And how in the world was the Pentagon left defenseless so long after the two buildings were hit? It should have been obvious to every person on the planet with basic cognitive skills that the US was under attack.

So many things went wrong all at once. Could it really have just been widescale negligence? Somehow though, I would rather believe it was corrupt leaders than the alternative, which is that our entire defense industry is terribly incompetent.

As you pointed out, we just don't know...but I do appreciate your efforts to help make sense of it all.

[TheWraith]

14. More answers.

"On the other hand, I do know that the Secret Service should have taken command in that classroom in Sarasota and rushed the president to safety. Why they didn't do that defies all explanation."

I can't comment on the Secret Service's behavior, but the way I see it, there's several possible motives. Uncertainty as to what constituted a safe location; politicos paralyzed regarding what to do in a situation they are grossly unqualified for; or simple stupidity as to the scope of the emergency.

And something to remember is that the Secret Service doesn't make national security or travel decisions--they can't decide whether the president should go back to the White House or not. They're only entitled to protection and personal security calls, and even then they're obligated to follow the president's orders.

"And I also know that NORAD should have scrambled fighter jets to intercept. Those pre-planned emergency drills taking place that morning should have been called off instantly. I simply cannot understand how there was such a massive communications failure that this wasn't done."

Short answer: inertia. It's why surprise attacks usually work. Once you have the drop on your enemy, they're reacting to you rather than acting on their own. So first they're concerned with getting the details of the first plane impact, then they're trying to find the second plane, then crunch. They're trying to catch up with what's already happened, rather than think ahead to what's next.

"And how in the world was the Pentagon left defenseless so long after the two buildings were hit? It should have been obvious to every person on the planet with basic cognitive skills that the US was under attack."

True. But again, action versus reaction. Yes, it would make sense to put a combat air patrol over every major city in that situation. But people can miss the most obvious things when they're focused on something else, panicked, confused, what have you. It's what they mean about hindsight being 20/20.

"So many things went wrong all at once. Could it really have just been widescale negligence? Somehow though, I would rather believe it was corrupt leaders than the alternative, which is that our entire defense industry is terribly incompetent."

This is what's sometimes referred to as the law of moral equivalence. We have an innate desire to believe that there's more to it, that somehow, that these events conform to a kind of logic. We don't want to believe that such a horrendous event could be caused by simple incompetance, and the malicious intent of 19 men with box-cutters. It's a principle best exemplified by World War II, and specifically the Holocaust. There, you have a kind of balance: on one side, 11 million people executed--on the other, the Nazis. Greatest crime, greatest criminals. But nobody wants to believe that things like this could just happen, almost at random, simply because someone hates us. There has to be a larger reason. There has to be someone on our side who betrayed us, because "those people" couldn't do it on their own. That sort of thing. Unfortunately, it's just not true.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. If the President knew about it

why did he scurry like a scared rabbit for most of the day? If the administration knew what was going on, why not take him back to DC immediately or even better, to NYC, so he could immediately go on national TV, play the brave hero and reassure the nation?

Why spend the day scurrying from hidey-hole to hidey-hole, leaving the nation wondering what the fuck was going on with him?

[CJCRANE]

16. Cheney was quite happy being in charge

in Washington and he probably knew more about what was going on than * who we all know doesn't pay attention.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Nonetheless

the ADMINISTRATION would've looked infinitely better if the President had immediately returned to DC or gone to NYC and addressed the nation early that afternoon.

[CJCRANE]

18. Not really.

The whole feasibiltiy of deniability looks better if B*sh is not in the loop and seen to be floundering. A polished and impressive response by B*sh would look too staged.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. LOL

so there's nothing he could've done that day that would argue AGAINST him being involved in the plot?

If he had responded heroically, it would mean he was involved.
If he responded like a scared bunny, it means he was involved.

That's what I love about conspiracists - any action can be read as supporting the conspiracy.

[CJCRANE]

22. It works both ways.

If he had responded heroically on the day you might say "well, he's just doing his job" or "he rose to the occasion".

I make my assumptions based on the facts on the day. You are making an assumption that any conspiracy is clear cut and competantly carried out and every little detail is planned. It doesn't work like that in the real world. Also you are making the assumption that B*sh was in the loop of what was going on when I never said that. It is quite possible to have a MIHOP or LIHOP situation without B*sh being closely involved.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

19. many anomalies..

trust your eyes and go w/ your gut; every american should be demanding a thorough and transparent investigation. it's that simple..

[Grateful for Hope]

20. I absolutely agree

:thumbsup:

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Trust your eyes and go w/ your gut? That's Colbert talk!

I loved it when Stephen Colbert skewered Bush for going with his gut. That's the hallmark of truthiness!

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

24. as usual; you completely miss point and ignore context..

think before you respond; not going to hold breath..

[TheWraith]

13. Some answers for you.

"However I still don't understand why WTC7 fell."

The short version is that it took several different kinds of damage. The building was struck by falling debris from the towers; it was hit by the equivalent of two small earthquakes right next door when each tower collapsed; and it sustained heavy structural fires. All combined, the building sustained too much damage for it to be safe, at which point it was only a question of full collapse or partial collapse.

Also, it pays to remember that WTC7 isn't alone in this--every building around the towers was either destroyed or damaged so severely that it had to be razed.

"And I don't get how the two towers turned into giant powder clouds as they were collapsing, and before they ever hit the ground."

The collapse would have caused the massive amounts of concrete in the structure to buckle and grind against each other, resulting in large clouds of concrete dust, which was ejected from the building as the air rushed out of the collapsing floors.

"I know the planes did tremendous damage -- but the way all those floors blew out -- well, it must just be my eyes playing tricks on me. It looks to me like a tremendous amount of explosive force occurred in under a dozen seconds."

A tremendous amount of force, yes--gigajoules of energy directed straight down. Explosive, no. Simply put, once the network of steel beams could no longer support the weight of the upper floors, those floors would have come crashing down onto the lower part of the building, smashing each floor as they struck it.

[i miss america]

25. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts on this

It does help me to some extent, but in all honesty, I still have some doubts about what really happened that day. In any case, I'll look for your posts again in the future in the hope of trying to learn more and to make sense of it all.

And thanks to all who responded with sincerity, regardless of whether we agree or disagree.

[wildbilln864]

26. most is true!

there are errors. It's best to watch it then check the facts for yourself. Many here will constantly try to discredit it. That's what they do here. The same ones usually who try to discredit any posts which don't support the Bush/PNAC CT.
And welcome to the dungeon, miss america! :hi: