Loose Change (9/11 documentary)

There's already a thread on this docu [URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=24420&highlight=loose]here[/URL].

Basically, it's full of flaws and I wouldn't read too much into it. But, that doesn't mean that there aren't some things left to be answered about 9/11.

Oh, and I'll say again - anything that uses Wikipedia to back up the veracity of a claim is just asking not to be taken seriously.

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]Oh, and I'll say again - anything that uses Wikipedia to back up the veracity of a claim is just asking not to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about the duplicate thread, I did a search first and I think this is a more appropriate title. And I agree with the wiki reference not to be taken seriously.

Why did building 7 fall? The Pentagon does not look like it was hit by an airliner. Fear makes people do crazy things, think crazy thing and believe crazy things (look at religion), and fear was running rampant after those buildings fell. Why are there so many conflicting versions of "official" story and eye-witness accounts?

I'm generally a skeptic but stuff didn't add up to begin with.

There was a good article in the Guardian a while back about this journalist who had inadvertently sparked some of the conspiracy theories surrounding July 7th in the UK.

He had filed a rushed audio report stating that the bombs had "come from beneath the train", but later realised that the statement he took from his first witness was from someone who was almost a carriage length away. Nearly all other subsequent eye-witness reports he filed stated that it was a bomb within the carriage.

But, as soon as the conspiracy dudes latched onto that chunk of news from the first report, it has been used hundreds of times as evidence of a controlled attack from the government etc

I guess I'm just saying that eye-witness reports in particular are easily manipulated. One person's "loud bang from falling debris" is another person's "explosions from planted bombs".

I also remember seeing on a website called Whatreallyhappened.com a picture of a single piece of plane debris from the Pentagon crash. However, it later turned out that several other bits had been digitally erased from the photo. Some people really, [I]really [/I]want you to believe their versions of events...

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]I also remember seeing on a website called Whatreallyhappened.com a picture of a single piece of plane debris from the Pentagon crash. However, it later turned out that several other bits had been digitally erased from the photo. Some people really, [I]really [/I]want you to believe their versions of events...[/QUOTE]

I can imagine someone doing that as a kind of a joke or to discredit the theories but how could anyone be dumb enough to do it in an honest attempt to convince us that there was a conspiracy going on? Don't they recognise the irony of that?

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]I can imagine someone doing that as a kind of a joke or to discredit the theories but how could anyone be dumb enough to do it in an honest attempt to convince us that there was a conspiracy going on? Don't they recognise the irony of that?[/QUOTE]

It may have been some wind-up from a joker, sent into the website for a lark.

But, if it was some misguided fool doctoring the image - it's not hugely far off those pictures that you see newpapers get busted for now and again. You know - when some blogger or other realises that the front page the Daily Whatever has posted of bombs falling in Lebanon has had the smoke plumes enlarged by 200%. And that kind of thing goes on a lot.

If I had some loose change, I would use it to buy a Monster Energy Drink.

I've seen this one and other documentaries like it.

I am fairly confident that this wasn't a terrorist attack.

When those buildings collapsed, when I saw it on the news, live and then over and over again, I wondered how on earth they collapsed so neatly, and so quickly.

It's pretty obvious that someone had bomds planted and brought those buildings down. The FDNY guys had no reason to make that stuff up about muliple explosions happening. They heard and saw it all.

That, couple with the fact that these buildings supposedly collapsed because of fire (yeah right) and I simply don't believe it.

I love how people will just go "Oh, another conspiracy theory, whatever." Sure, there's a little weak evidence in this movie, but there are some irrefutable facts about building structure and what those towers were designed to withstand that does not add up.

Oh, and I love how flight 177 (pentagon crash) and 93 (the one that we're told crashed en route thanks to vigilant passengers) were the first two, the only two jet liners in aviation history to have been vaporized on impact.

Also, somehow all these people made cell phone calls from over 30,000 feet, which is completely impossible to tell their family they loved them.

No flight recorders were ever found. No bodies were present at either crash site.

No pieces of a commercial jet were ever recovered at either site.

Take theory to mythbuster. Then, we find answer.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Oh, and I love how flight 177 (pentagon crash) and 93 (the one that we're told crashed en route thanks to vigilant passengers) were the first two, the only two jet liners in aviation history to have been vaporized on impact.

Also, somehow all these people made cell phone calls from over 30,000 feet, which is completely impossible to tell their family they loved them.

No flight recorders were ever found. No bodies were present at either crash site.

No pieces of a commercial jet were ever recovered at either site.[/QUOTE]

That's just crap, it's utter, utter crap. Did you just make it up on the spot?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I've seen this one and other documentaries like it.

I am fairly confident that this wasn't a terrorist attack.

When those buildings collapsed, when I saw it on the news, live and then over and over again, I wondered how on earth they collapsed so neatly, and so quickly.

It's pretty obvious that someone had bomds planted and brought those buildings down. The FDNY guys had no reason to make that stuff up about muliple explosions happening. They heard and saw it all.

That, couple with the fact that these buildings supposedly collapsed because of fire (yeah right) and I simply don't believe it.

I love how people will just go "Oh, another conspiracy theory, whatever." Sure, there's a little weak evidence in this movie, but there are some irrefutable facts about building structure and what those towers were designed to withstand that does not add up.[/QUOTE]

This stuff carries a little more water but not that much. I mean of course if it had just been a fire then that wouldn't have happened but remember that it was hit by a plane first. Also, several gallons of aeroplane fuel will tend to add a bit of life to a fire.

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]This stuff carries a little more water but not that much. I mean of course if it had just been a fire then that wouldn't have happened but remember that it was hit by a plane first. Also, several gallons of aeroplane fuel will tend to add a bit of life to a fire.[/QUOTE]

So watch the video, weed the facts from this guys interpretive bias and decide for yourself.

Several thousand gallons of jet fuel, when it explodes, burns up in about 5 seconds at around 2000 degrees.

The steel that the twin towers was made of had to be able to withstand those kind of temperatures for several hours, not seconds. 5 weeks after the collapse of the towers, there was still molten steel in the basement levels of the towers which simply could not have come from a plane crash.

About the plane crash sites, the pictures tell the whole story. Planes don't just dissappear, man. And if it were to happen once, that'd be amazing. Twice in the same day? No dice.

I know some of this guys claims are out there...some of them don't really SAY anything but rather imply or hint at gov't involvement. Those parts of his theory are weak.

But there's a butt load of completely unexplained things that just don't happen because they are physically impossible.

Oh yeah, what about the plane that crashed into the empire state building? The B 52 bomber.

Back in 1945. [url]http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179[/url]

These towers were built ten times better than the Empire State building, but that's the one that is still standing.

It's funny all the videos of huge buildings one fire that never collapsed, but these two towers plus that third smaller trade center building, all collapsed due to fire.

On record, these are the first 3 steel and concrete buildings in history to collapse because of fire. And that all happened on the same day, too.

2 commercial planes vaporize on impact, 3 buildings built from high grade steel back in the 70's burn for a a matter of minutes, then collapse on themselves; all logical impossibilites, all on the same day.

I love it.

The fuel didn't all burn in a few seconds, it would have lasted much longer than that. It's not like in the action movies where tanks full of fuel can just explode, they spill out all over the place and burn.

As for this stuff about the planes being vapourised, STOP MAKING SHIT UP! There are pictures of the wreckage and the black boxes from United 93 were found and the transcripts were released.

As for the plane crashing into the Empire State building, it was a B25 not a B52 which are much smaller and carry less fuel. Also, the fuel these days is probably more efficient so it would burn hotter.

EDIT: Ahhh, I see. It's not your fault that you're utterly wrong, you're just believing what this documentary tells you without researching around the subject. Kinda fits with your profile I guess.

where have there ever been any pictures of either plane wreckage in Penn. or the Pentagon?
only thing I've ever seen is them holding up some little scrap piece of metal here or there

Did you know that if you shove a twenty dollar bill up your ass, it'll smell like shit?

I don't see how a plane that hit the building that far up could bring it down, not downwards like that, it looked more like a demolition than a destruction. The foundations of skyscrapers that big are very deep in the ground, I'm not sure how deep they would have to be but my grandfather founded and owned a steel fixing business and for more than 30 years he built bridges and towers and I believe him when he says there is no way a plane crashing into a tower like that would make it fall the way it did.

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker]where have there ever been any pictures of either plane wreckage in Penn. or the Pentagon?
only thing I've ever seen is them holding up some little scrap piece of metal here or there[/QUOTE]

Here's the transcript of the one of the black-boxes [url]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf[/url]

Here's some pictures of the flight recorders and plane wreckage. [url]http://www.amny.com/news/local/newyork/ny-flight93-pg,0,844175.photogallery?coll=am-topheadlines&index=1[/url]

Remember, most of the time when a plane crash lands in fields it's just after take-off and in most cases it's a controlled landing where the pilots are attempting to minimise damage to the plane and loss of life. This wasn't like that at all. This crashed nose first into the ground at about 600 mph. Look at the videos of the planes hitting the towers, there are big explosions as a portion of the fuel is vapourised and ignites, now imagine a plane going at straight into the ground. There's going to be the same sort of explosions and there's not going to be many big chunks of wreckage.

As for the thing in the pentagon, it's probably the same sort of situations, but that's not the most important point. There's hundreds of eye-witnesses saying that they saw a large commercial jet crash in the building, some could even identify this as a 757. Only two people ever said anything different and they couldn't see particularly well anyway.

[QUOTE=Grae]I don't see how a plane that hit the building that far up could bring it down, not downwards like that, it looked more like a demolition than a destruction. The foundations of skyscrapers that big are very deep in the ground, I'm not sure how deep they would have to be but my grandfather founded and owned a steel fixing business and for more than 30 years he built bridges and towers and I believe him when he says there is no way a plane crashing into a tower like that would make it fall the way it did.[/QUOTE]

Most large building are designed to collapse that way, whether it's by demolition or other means, to minimise the damage done to the surrounding area. The core of the building collapses first and the outside follows, falling inward.

[QUOTE=rocky_sun]You are a cock.[/QUOTE]

Very constructive...... anyway, I don't care how hard/fast that the plane crashed there would be some big chunks breaking off and flying all over the place. Drop a fricken glass on the ground, then try another one only this time throw it as hard as you can, it's not going to disintegrate. If you think the fire took care of the rest use a molotov [B]cock[/B]tail and try the same experiment. No matter what you're going to have shards of glass all over the place, just like you'd have shards of plane all over the place. The PA and the CIA crashes did not have shards of plane anywhere to be seen.

Where are the rest of the video footage from the hotel, gas station and transportation department of the Pentagon strike?

i think whats really disturbing about all of this is that a lot of these questions could have been answered pretty easily, but for whatever reason they just decided to not bother asking them.

Conspiracy theory #297 : They did this on purpose to get everyone bickering back and forth about what happened, to stay looking at the past, while [i]They[/i] just continue to do the things they do

If you drop a glass it will break into large pieces, if you throw it fast enough it will break into smaller and smaller pieces. If you have a plane travelling at six hundred miles per hour, landing on it's nose (upside down according to eye-witnesses), then exploding because of several tens of thousand gallons of jet fuel inside it there won't be many large chunks of remains left over.

You look at the photos and there are some recognisable chunks of plane but when you see the actual crash site from further away it's covered in fragments of metal and glass and stuff. People are asking 'where's the wreckage?' but there it is.

They're expecting to see a big messed up plane like what happens after other plane crashes but like I said, most crashes occur just after take-off or just before landing, the plane is moving much slower and the pilot is generally attempting to land safely.

[QUOTE=bassplr19]Where are the rest of the video footage from the hotel, gas station and transportation department of the Pentagon strike?[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about the footage shown [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77]here[/URL]?

In the first picture you can just about make out the plane quite far in the distance. It's actually below the horizon level, in the second picture you can see the explosion. This is exactly what you would expect for something moving that fast, these security cameras have quite low frame-per-second rates.

Again, how do you explain the hundred or so eye witnesses that saw the jet and could in some cases identify it as a 757?

[QUOTE=bassplr19][QUOTE=rocky_sun]you are a cock[/QUOTE]...hard/fast...[/QUOTE]

Hee...hee...

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]Most large building are designed to collapse that way, whether it's by demolition or other means, to minimise the damage done to the surrounding area. The core of the building collapses first and the outside follows, falling inward.[/QUOTE]

It still hit it pretty far up, like 3/4 of the way up maybe, if it hit it at the bottom I could see it collapsing but it didn't, there was definitely some other influence in there that made that building collapse.

I think it was in Loose Change or a similar film that they examined video of the tower collapsing, and as it begins to crumble they say you can see small controlled explosions at the front and side of the building, like the type that would be used to demolish a building.

The heavy section at the top collapsed down onto the weakened sections around the area where the plane hit. From then on it was a 'pancake' effect where the force of falling debris from above is more than any floor can stand and the whole thing fell down. It collapsed from the inside first which caused the windows to be blow out and dust to be ejected.

People say the collapse of the towers are the 'grassy knoll' of the 9/11 conspiracies. I think they're more like the 'bullet wound to the head'. Kennedy was hit from behind but his head moved backwards, leading people to think that he had been shot from the front. The collapse of a building like WTC is unprecedented, engineers around the world simulated it and were able to explain what happened. There is simply no good reason to believe that any sort of explosives were used.

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]The heavy section at the top collapsed down onto the weakened sections around the area where the plane hit. From then on it was a 'pancake' effect where the force of falling debris from above is more than any floor can stand and the whole thing fell down. It collapsed from the inside first which caused the windows to be blow out and dust to be ejected.

People say the collapse of the towers are the 'grassy knoll' of the 9/11 conspiracies. I think they're more like the 'bullet wound to the head'. Kennedy was hit from behind but his head moved backwards, leading people to think that he had been shot from the front. The collapse of a building like WTC is unprecedented, engineers around the world simulated it and were able to explain what happened. There is simply no good reason to believe that any sort of explosives were used.[/QUOTE]

Check out "Sniper's Nest" by Bill Hicks from his Shock and Awe album.

[QUOTE=bassplr19]Check out "Sniper's Nest" by Bill Hicks from his Shock and Awe album.[/QUOTE]

Why? What does it say? I know about the whole 'Kennedies Head' thing, I've seen that episode of Penn and Teller.

[QUOTE=mikandrewz]Why? What does it say? I know about the whole 'Kennedies Head' thing, I've seen that episode of Penn and Teller.[/QUOTE]

It talks about the Sniper's Nest Museum, hilarious

[url]http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2005/06/bill_hicks_reve.html[/url]

Oh right, yeah that. He just made that up. You can see the road, it's just there's light tree cover at the point where Kennedy was shot and people think it was more likely Oswald would have shot him while he was coming towards the building where there was no tree cover.