Author Topic: interesting online 9/11 conspiracy movie (Read 2012 times)

Haywire Haywood · « **on:** August 12, 2006, 02:32:53 AM »

A lot of folk will not like this for obvious reasons, but if you have broadband this asks some serious questions about the events of 9/11. www.loosechange911.com is the homepage for the movie. www.seeloosechange.com is where you can see it. It's 80 minutes long, so be prepared to sit awhile.

If you watch it, I'd be very interested in hearing what you think about what was presented. It does raise some troubling questions.

Ian

Questor · « **Reply #1 on:** August 13, 2006, 04:01:43 AM »

I heard an interview with the maker. He says it's a conspiracy theory movie.

The statements by Rice, Rumsfeld and Fleischer at the beginning are presented as though they were connected. They were not connected in time or in context. I recall those statements as they were made and Rumsfeld was speaking in the context of the pattern of escalating bombings directed at U.S. properties during the 1990s. Fleischer was speaking at a press conference in answer to being asked whether there was a warning about the specific attack just after it occurred, and Rice was speaking of a specific group.

The movie appears to be made in the form of the Michael Moore movies. Not credible.

Questor · « **Reply #2 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:32:38 AM »

I happened to be watching it from impact to collapse. It looked more like about an hour to me.

powderman · « **Reply #3 on:** August 13, 2006, 10:51:48 AM »

Quote from: Questor on August 13, 2006, 09:32:38 AM

I happened to be watching it from impact to collapse. It looked more like about an hour to me.

I saw it too, was glued to the set all day. A friend of mine was there and saw it live. He scooped up some ash from the roof of a car and put it in a pill bottle as a memento.
Don't know what is so hard to understand. A bunch of Godless subhumans hijacked 4 planes and murdered 3,000 Americans, screaming allah akhbar as the sent themselves to hell. Not too hard to understand for me. POWDERMAN.

powderman · « **Reply #4 on:** August 13, 2006, 05:05:26 PM »

TM7. Yep, 1st televised attack, hope it's the last. I guess I don't understand your question, or point. I remember the film of the plane hitting the second building, and seeing people jumping to their death to keep from being burned alive. I remember the guys walking around carrying the buckets and picking up body parts. I can close my eyes and hear the screams of the folks being burned alive, and those about to die. I can imagine the carnage on the streets as many jumped to their death, never seen a human body dropped 1,000 feet onto concrete, don't want to, couldn't be pretty. About the other buildings, I don't remember a lot, other than there was a lot of damage to other buildings from falling debris and secondary explosions. I'm sure gas lines were broken and that may play a part in the damage. My buddy was there, and I believe that the events took place as I saw them, as did he. POWDERMAN.

nomosendero · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2006, 06:52:26 PM »

I have no doubt that soon we will be told that we didn't see what we saw.

Questor · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2006, 03:36:51 AM »

I don't know, as I don't know many of the details of the attacks. I also am not able to watch the movie in its entirety. What is the gist of the argument that's being made, and what evidence is there to support it?

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2006, 09:33:07 AM »

I think it raises interesting questions that have yet to be answered. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think the government is some evil entity that is out to get us. I do however, think that honesty is not their strong point and that it's totally possible that some of the details of that day were covered up to prevent public panic. The engineer's letter saying that the steel as spec'd out could not have been compromised by the temps that jet fuel burns at and the strange lack of large wreckage at both the Pentagon and the field in Pennslvania are questions to be answered. The round deep hole in the Pentagon that doesn't match with the impact of a jetliner calls the official story into question. The molten puddles of steel at the BASE of the Tower's supporting pillars many many floors below the impact points I find unexplainable. I don't have the answers, but the questions the movie leaves are many.

Ian

doc_kreipke · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2006, 03:23:39 PM »

Quote

...it's totally possible that some of the details of that day were covered up to prevent public panic. ...

What kind of situation do you suppose would induce more panic than the notion that terrorists could infiltrate American society, easily hijack four airliners, and turn them into effective missiles of destruction? Seems to me that the American public got the McPanic full meal deal on the 11th.

Also, if we do get another investigation, who should conduct it?

-K

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2006, 04:13:02 PM »

Which would inspire more panic or a feeling of lost security? The notion that a few terrorists hijacked some planes, a scenario that we are accustomed to hearing or that a detailed planned attack involving the smugglling of high explosives into the WTC to aid in their destruction once the planes hit and actually having a misslie launched from within the US strike the Pentagon?

I find it hard to believe that a random airplane strike could cause the towers to fall directly down on themselves just as neatly as if they had been professionally demolished. Demo experts study for years to make buildings fall like that.

I dunno what the answers are, maybe it went down exactly as we have been lead to beleive. We'll never know, at least in the near future.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #10 on:** August 16, 2006, 01:33:05 PM »

The one thing that makes me sincerely doubt that there was any domestic clandestine gov't operation is the sheer number of people that would need to be involved. Keeping that kind of thing a secret would be next to impossible.

Ian

powderman · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2006, 03:49:14 PM »

I think some of you spend TOO much time at the DNC website reading garbage. The fuel from the full tanks of the planes burned extremely hot, hot enough to weaken the steel beams holding the structures together. As they buckled from the heat and 10-20 floors weight above them, they collapsed. When 20 or so floors collapse at once, the tremendous weight buckled each floor, gaining weight, and speed as it went. Not hard to understand, no bombs, just planes. POWDERMAN.

nomosendero · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2006, 05:56:01 PM »

Quote from: Haywire Haywood on August 16, 2006, 01:33:05 PM

The one thing that makes me sincerely doubt that there was any domestic clandestine gov't operation is the sheer number of people that would need to be involved. Keeping that kind of thing a secret would be next to impossible.

Ian

Ian, no doubt this is the case.

So I guess these Arabs who did all of this flight training to bring down the great Satan actually were working
for the great Satan unaware. Oh, I forgot, it is the Jews or more precisely the Zionist Jews who got all of this going & got our Gov. to pay the Arabs. This is why it had to be kept secret, it would have confused everyone & then we could not choose sides.

Questor · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2006, 06:08:09 PM »

I can't believe I did it, but I actually did some web searches on wtc7. It's got to be the biggest conspiracy theory on the web.

I'm beginning to think that JFK and Elvis Presley planned the destruction and it was executed by the Roswell aliens.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:00:29 PM »

What do you think about the claim that they have found several of the "hijackers" supposedly alive and well leading their mundane lives in the middle east?

Ian

doc_kreipke · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:23:53 PM »

Who are "they?" Same folk who are spotting Elvis all the time?

I'm not buying "their" used car.

doc_kreipke · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2006, 01:41:04 AM »

Here’s what mainstream scientists, engineers, and experts (300 of ‘em) are saying about the 9/11 conspiracy :

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

It includes a non-conspiratorial explanation of what happened to WTC 7.

The editors have expanded the web site into a book that goes into a lot more detail than the web site:

Debunking 9/11 Myths. D Dunbar and B Reagan, eds. NY, Hearst Books, Sterling Publishing Co, 2006.

ISBN 978-1-58816-635-7

An alternate viewpoint to the notion that Geo Bush ordered the murder of several thousand American citizens and foreign nationals on that September day.

Questor · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2006, 03:24:18 AM »

TM7:

I'd be interested to read your conclusions about what actually happened on 9/11.

Questor · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2006, 07:55:25 AM »

I'm not planning to look into it any further than I already have. I'm mostly interested in what the conclusions are, if there are any. Most conspiracy theories raise questions without formulating conclusions, so to add legitimacy to these arguments there will have to be evindence on which conclusions are based, and which are objectively verifiable.

My sense is that if there were a real story here, then mainstream papers would have picked up on it, and several journalists would be well on their way to distinguished careers by running with the story. That isn't happening.

Do you happen to know who funded the production of the internet movie you refer to?

Questor · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2006, 08:04:46 AM »

...I forgot to ask.

Since you're studying the matter, are you finding any information that refutes what is in the movie? I would expect some such information to be available from credible sources because there are so many factual errors that I spotted just in the beginning five minutes of the movie, which is all I was able to watch.

Questor · « **Reply #20 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:17:56 PM »

Specifically, I'm interested in the source of the money behind the so-called "truth movement".

Questor · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2006, 12:26:46 PM »

Sorry. Forgot to answer your question. The ones I can recall are ones I mentioned in an earlier post, and the use of unattributed sources in quotes. These are basic tools of deception. That's why I think it's unadvisable to take it seriously.

Again, if you could concentrate on finding whose funding the movie and the so-called truth movement, I'd like to know where the money is coming from for these time-intensive activities. I'd also like to know if anyone has formed any conclusions based on this dubious evidence.

powderman · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2006, 04:05:07 PM »

Some of you guys are too far out inspace for me, I don't have a tin foil hat. Enjoy your delusions. POWDERMAN.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #23 on:** August 17, 2006, 11:05:31 PM »

Quote from: Questor on August 17, 2006, 12:26:46 PM

the use of unattributed sources in quotes. These are basic tools of deception.

The media uses "anonymous sources" all the time, so I guess they're working out of that same toolbox. A lot of the conspiracy stuff I've read lately is WAY out there. I just can't get on board for whatever reason. I am convinced that we are not in possession of all the facts concerning what happened that day, and also think that it's possible that some of the official story is a blatent lie. Beyond that, I have no clue. I doubt I ever will.

Ian