Loose Change: wow

[sayter]

I saw a documentary recently that is simply astounding in terms of research content and verifiable expert evidence. This deals a lot with the problems surrounding official explanations of 9/11, as well as the method in which the government dealt with the issues.

Even if you dismiss it as sensationalistic and "unpatriotic" it warrants a look. Thankfully, anyone with the ability to use their brain outside of what they have been brainwashed to take for the truth will at least consider the possibility that this is accurate information.

Having researched data after seeing it, I can at least say that a vast majority of this information is accurate as presented in the film.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

P.S. Its one hour and 20 mins long or so. It covers a LOT of area. And its mind altering :)

[kegsworth]

I watched this yesterday, very interesting to say the least.

[Wizzy`]

I'll watch it later when I have some time..but for now..I must recruit, and make outkast's heart beat.

[max2k106]

An hour and twenty minutes . . . maybe when I'm unconcious.

[kegsworth]

An hour and twenty minutes . . . maybe when I'm unconcious.

For me, it was a timekiller at work.

:cool:

[HeadHunter343]

well i don't think it is by michael moore but it seems like the same type of movies and farenheit 9/11 and bowling for columbine both sucked the big one...i'm not saying this movie does or will...but more than likely i'm not watching it...sorry.

[Doctor Love]

Wow. This looks nice! Better than Farrenheit (sp?) 9/11! When did this thing come out? What's going on with it? It needs to go big!:p

[sayter]

thats why i liked it. No Michael Moore drivel. I like his stuff to a point but its overly sensationalistic :)

this is down to earth and in your face.

[R G]

Well I did watch this...all hour and a half...quite intriquing but it sure made me ask more questions.

The biggest thing that I had to consider is this - To pull of what this guy is suggesting would take alot of people to know what was going down and NO ONE IS TALKING!!!

-A team of explosive people to plant explosives in the WTC
-Security people to allow free reign of both WTC buildings for that team of explosive team
-Over a hundred people on flight 93 had to be bought off or debriefed or killed or w/e
-All the people in Cleveland from the Air traffic controllers to the ground crew there to the people in Cleveland that did w/e to the people that were on that flight
-All the people that saw the security tapes(Convience store,Freeway etc) before it was confiscated by the FBI in Washington DC
-All the people in cars on the freeway that runs right next to the Pentagon
-Landowner to allow a hole to be dug - and people to dig a whole - people to put stuff in the hole


I am sure that this could be pulled off but not there is no way to surpress several hunderd people to talk to the press...

[marijuana]

An Hour and Twenty minutes? I can't even stay seated, or quiet for that long..

I don't think I can be kept entertained that long!

A.D.D.?

[Aro23r]

Oh yea, we didn't land on the moon either. It was a Steven Speilberg movie.

[Pieface1337]

Oh yea, we didn't land on the moon either. It was a Steven Speilberg movie.

Really? Now you have ruined my life..All the undiscovered has been discovered.

[Edmaster]

I have a response to this up at the Flashplayer forums. Let me go search for it...

EDIT: Here you go...

I've watched the video and read all 10 pages of this thread. The video is... interesting, to say the least. There is a lot of information and evidence given, and the sheer amount given is hard to deny. However, I still have a few thoughts (quite a few actually).

I'm going to respond in a calm, non-derogatory manner. I hope everyone else can do the same. What I'm about to say is either conclusions that I've drawn, or just things I've been pondering about.

1.) Eye-witnesses. Undoubtedly the most unreliable form of evidence available. Anyone that's taken a brief course of psychology, or just listened to an expert talk, would understand how hard it is to remember anything about a person or thing, yet some people are trying to act like they've heard a missile streak by instead of an airplane. Even the Vietnam veteran cannot guarantee accuracy, no matter his experience. The fact is that they SAW a plane, or they say they saw a plane. Even their evidence of sight cannot be taken as holy writ, for the same reason.

2.) A few contradictory statements made during the video. At one point, he talks about how if a car is within 50 feet of an airliner, it would get blown away, yet he then uses eye-witness evidence stating that a woman was about 40 feet from the plane in PA to support his claims.

3.) The planes that hit the WTC. It's seems plausible for them to bring the buildings down, at least to me. My idea: The plane that collided hit the tower at a corner of the building (or middle, either one might be able to produce the same result), and shot through to the other side. This weakened the supports (nearly a third to half the building), and the other side's supports were unable to hold the excess mass from the loss of support. The top part collapses, and the rest of the towers collapse under the mass, which has now gained inertia from the initial collapse.

You're wondering why the building didn't collapse to one side? Here's another thought: A single plane isn't going to make the entire building fall to the side, that's just not possible. The force of one plane pales in comparison against the mass of an enormous tower. The main reason it collapsed (that I'm thinking of right now) is probably due to the force of gravity because the initial supports couldn't hold it, combined with some other factors.

4.) The fine dust that's evident in high explosives: He never says exactly what the dust at the WTC is. It could just be concrete dust for all we know.

5.) The passport surviving vs. 7 black boxes being destroyed: different parts of the aircraft are going to receive different exposures to heat and explosions. Also, books aren't as flammable as you might think. The outsides will burn, but the insides actually stand a possibility of surviving against high temperatures. There have been records of library books surviving large-scale fires, with the books in the exact same locations as hotspots of the fires. The covers and such of the books will look pretty bad, but the insides will still show readable print.

6.) Cell phones: The experiments that were being done were done on small aircraft. Most large commercial airliners (to the best of my knowledge) have signal amplifiers (sort of like portable cell towers) so people can phone from their plane to anywhere else.

7.) The 9 hijackers still alive? He didn't give a single example of them. Sure, he gave their faces a job, but with an hour's worth of information, he could of at least tried to show footage or something of one of the survivors. I'm not saying it's false, but without supporting information to back it up... maybe it's in one of those sites listed at the end or something.

8.) Usama (not Osama?) bin Laden: It was known that he used body doubles for protection.

Again, these are just my thoughts on the subject. Don't go "attacking" me because I'm actually thinking against your opinions. If you can explain my questions and comments, please do so, but don't go calling me a Bush-loving retard or something of that nature.

[x-useme]

I just watched it. If those facts are true, HOLY CRAP. But I dont know, they always could have just made facts. I would go research the facts but it would literally take forever.