9/11 Loose Change documentary | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (3)
belb
big
dariusgriffin
...and 436 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614116
Today 2
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
9/11 Loose Change documentary
 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2006-03-30 15:19 [#01869722]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Show recordbag



Loose Change

This is a 1.5 hour long documentary asking pretty much all
the questions that need to be answered about 9/11. Not all
of it adds up 100%, but this is by far the best documentary
about 9/11 and it makes it pretty obvious that the
"official" account of the events given by the U.S.
government is a bunch of bullshit. Please if you have some
free time just watch this, even if you aren't American. This
country needs help, bad. Even if you don't have time to
watch the whole thing, just watch as much of it as you can.
If this has been posted here before or is common knowledge
to some of you, I appologize as I am merely trying to spread
the word.


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2006-03-30 15:52 [#01869727]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular



seconded.

i saw this on public access tv a few months ago, and its
incredibly well presented and non-bs.

this pretty much convinced me just due to the fact that the
facts are so fucked, it doesnt make sense.


 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-03-30 16:23 [#01869733]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker



thirded... there is a second version out - get the torrent.

folks, the evidence is there, a literal mafia has taken over
america... they're frikkin psychos. spread the info


 

offline qrter from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2006-03-30 16:26 [#01869735]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator | Followup to jamesa: #01869733



"folks, the evidence is there, a literal mafia has taken
over america..."


is this supposed to be news? the US has a previously falsely
elected president, for fucks sake.


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2006-03-30 16:31 [#01869737]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to qrter: #01869735 | Show recordbag



true, but I think a lot of people don't realize how bad it
has truly become.


 

offline i_x_ten from arsemuncher on 2006-03-30 16:39 [#01869738]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular | Followup to qrter: #01869735



and i suppose you're wearing liberal clogs


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2006-03-30 18:09 [#01869755]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular | Followup to i_x_ten: #01869738



theyre called burkenstocks :P


 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-03-30 18:58 [#01869759]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker | Followup to qrter: #01869735



many if not most people either won't accept it or think that
if they don't think about it then it won't matter.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2006-03-30 19:02 [#01869760]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Only one question needs to be answered about 9/11 and that
is the question about why the yanks switch the day and month
around like flids.


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-03-30 19:08 [#01869766]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



I watched this thing it's utter bullshit. How come a small
plane on slow approach is knocked out of the sky by light
poles but a jumbo jet barreling at full speed knocks them
over? How come a WW2 prop plane crashed into the Empire
State building and it didnt fall down but a jet with a full
load of fuel plows into the world trade center at top speed
and it gets knocked down? Geez it must be a conspiracy. Most
of the arguments they present are idiotic. If you want to
know the truth of why the WTC came down check out this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ Not some stoner
documentary.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2006-03-30 19:10 [#01869768]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to rezpeni: #01869766 | Show recordbag



Does that link answer my question?


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-03-30 19:22 [#01869774]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



I looked around for an explanation. I found loads of info
describing the differences but no reason why. My head hurts.


 

offline ecnadniarb on 2006-03-30 19:28 [#01869780]
Points: 24805 Status: Lurker | Followup to rezpeni: #01869774 | Show recordbag



There is no answer. I asked the president and he replied
"words"


 

offline -V- from Ensenada Drive on 2006-03-30 19:55 [#01869782]
Points: 1452 Status: Lurker



They are both confusing. ISO-8601 is the only decent way.
Like up there ^^^^


 

offline chambre noire from Iceland on 2006-03-31 00:11 [#01869809]
Points: 2515 Status: Lurker



Charlie Sheen was on CNN last week and told that he didn't
buy the story offered in the 9/11 Commission Report and that
he thought the government had something to do with the whole
thing..
CNN also had a poll:

Charlie Sheen speaks out: Do you agree there is a government
cover-up of 9/11?
YES: 83%
NO: 17%

videos and stuff here

Alex Jones from infowars.com got this whole thing started
with this interview (video link)


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2006-03-31 00:31 [#01869811]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



How much proof do you need than the actual footage? It was
the most televised terror attack and still people don't
believe it!!


 

offline Zeus from San Francisco (United States) on 2006-03-31 00:58 [#01869817]
Points: 14042 Status: Lurker | Followup to bogala: #01869811



what?

Yeah, we know it happened. We know it was planes (WTC at
least). The question is, who is responsible? The video
footage doesn't answer that.


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-03-31 01:06 [#01869818]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



Yah but if you watch that Loose Change video, they claim the
planes crashing into the building wasn't what brought it
down but controlled explosives that were places in the
building the week before. They also claim it was a cruise
missle that hit the pentagon and random wreckage was strewn
about afterward. Oh and btw, the original "highjacked"
planes landed somewhere and the passengers disembarked
before all this happened. Seriously, how high do you have to
be for this to make sense?


 

offline chambre noire from Iceland on 2006-03-31 01:08 [#01869819]
Points: 2515 Status: Lurker



there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11.
why is there not ONE image of a plane crashing in to the
Pentagon? why did the FBI confiscate surveillance videos
within minutes of something hitting the Pentagon, from
surrounding gas stations and hotels? just see Loose Change
(2nd Edition) and be critical.

other more hardcore videos: 9/11 The Road To Tyranny and
Martial Law The Rise Of The Police State


 

offline chambre noire from Iceland on 2006-03-31 01:15 [#01869820]
Points: 2515 Status: Lurker



here an animation from SEPTEMBER 12th, 2001 (wtf/lol!!!)


Attached picture

 

offline Taxidermist from Black Grass on 2006-03-31 01:16 [#01869821]
Points: 9958 Status: Lurker



I think less energy should be spent trying to get people to
take accountability for what happened, and more should be
spent on figuring out healthy ways to deal with it. Its
pretty much accepted that the US government had a bigger
hand in the events than they are willing to admit.


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2006-03-31 01:34 [#01869823]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



That vid explains everything. lol please. Do you know how
big 757's are? We see these images as if they are toys on a
screen. I believe everything I saw that day. Occum's razor.



 

offline rezpeni on 2006-03-31 01:40 [#01869825]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



"there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11.
why is there not ONE image of a plane crashing in to the
Pentagon? why did the FBI confiscate surveillance videos
within minutes of something hitting the Pentagon, from
surrounding gas stations and hotels?"

What was the original frame rate of that video though and
how fast was the plane going? Seems reasonable for the FBI
to confiscate surveillance tapes ASAP considering the scale
of the crime and that it happened in Washington D.C. you
would certainly expect a very very short response time.


 

offline futureimage from buy FIR from Juno (United Kingdom) on 2006-03-31 09:34 [#01870023]
Points: 6427 Status: Lurker



Is this the doc where they show the "bombs" going off in
slow motion as the one tower collapses?
If so, i've seen an excerpt, and it really did change my
mind a lot.


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2006-04-01 01:21 [#01870414]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to rezpeni: #01869825 | Show recordbag



"Seems reasonable for the FBI to confiscate surveillance
tapes ASAP considering the scale of the crime and that it
happened in Washington D.C. you would certainly expect a
very very short response time."

no shit, but the question stands: why have the tapes not
been released, if the government has nothing to hide?

_
-

I guess I should have asked everyone to watch the thing in
its entirety, since taking parts of it out of context
(especially the parts that I feel are poorly done) can give
you a bad impression of the documentary. Wherever you sit on
this issue, Loose Change might give you some things to think
about. Like I said, not all of it adds up 100%, but there
are some interesting parts.


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2006-04-01 02:24 [#01870426]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular | Followup to Zephyr Twin: #01870414



hence why its called loose change. it doesnt aim to answer
every question, just pose a few that have been left
unanswered.

im not particularly convinced of the wtc event, but the
pentagon just doesnt add up. at all. a 16 ft hole cause by a
757? utter bullshit.

and i absolutely resent the stoner comments, where in the
fuck did they come from? who said anything about weed or
drugs or anything thru the whole doc. thats just fucking
laziness blaming questioning of authority on drugs. piss the
fuck off wanker.


 

online big from lsg on 2006-04-01 03:15 [#01870464]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



conspiracy is the poor man's explanation of things


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2006-04-01 03:53 [#01870461]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to hedphukkerr: #01870426 | Show recordbag



"hence why its called loose change. it doesnt aim to answer

every question, just pose a few that have been left
unanswered."

I realise this, but I was just clarifying for people that
don't know so I don't come off as over-zealous or something.
:)

I assume all the stuff about stoners was directed at
rezpeni, in which case I agree with you completely.


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-04-01 04:17 [#01870485]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



It's stoney because the whole thing is backed with this
ridiculous hip hop beat and the guy that narrates it sounds
like he is about 25 and at time speaks some very poorly
written commentary - it's like being trapped at some party
with a dude smoking a bowl spinning all this nonsense for
you. If you want me to take your theories on 9/11 seriously
don't back the whole movie with fat beats. I was at a skate
shop the other day and they were playing this movie.
Seriously.

"no shit, but the question stands: why have the tapes not
been released, if the government has nothing to hide? "

Uh, you know they just released the 911 tapes from the WTC
today and even that had half the conversation cut out. I
don't think all the tapes from the Oklahoma city bombing
have been released either. Just because they haven't
released the surveillence tapes doesn't mean the ridiculous
theories in this doc are any more credible. Bush and co.
have a policy of ony declassifying info that shows them in a
positive light or backs up their case for pointless wars.

"im not particularly convinced of the wtc event, but the
pentagon just doesnt add up. at all. a 16 ft hole cause by
a
757? utter bullshit."

You tell me which sounds more like bullshit:

a. according to loose change: the plane that crashed into
the wtc was not really highjacked but goverment agents flew
it to a secluded airport where the passengers disembarked
(btw what happened to the passengers? Were they killed? Are
they in a secret prison?) the plane was then replaced with a
miltary jet that crashed into the pentagon via remote
control(?) or it was a cruise missle and random airplane
parts were put there by the goverment for a photo op. Even
after watching the doc I can't figure out what theory they
are advocating.

b. Al Queda terrorists highjacked the plane with box cutters
and flew it into the pentagon killing all the passengers
aboard.

Hmm. Now which of these makes more sense to you? The alien
autopsy documentary was more believable than this.


 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-04-01 07:32 [#01870536]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker | Followup to rezpeni: #01869825



if the scale of the crime was so "large" why did they haul
up the wreckage of the wtcs under armed guard and then flog
it to the far east for cheap scrap? no analysis, no
nothing?

oh, and the guy that owned the buildings said they "pulled"
WTC 7, but the 9/11 commission reports it came down by
fire.

and they originally said there'd be no commission, only
after pressure from families of victims did they open one,
it was a total joke and they fronted Henry Kissinger as it's
front man!

9/11 commission is 571 page lie


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2006-04-01 11:29 [#01870671]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular | Followup to rezpeni: #01870485



um, a.


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2006-04-01 11:30 [#01870674]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular | Followup to hedphukkerr: #01870671



shit, i mean b is more bullshit.

i fucked that one up :P


 

offline Zephyr Twin from ΔΔΔ on 2006-04-01 11:35 [#01870681]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Followup to rezpeni: #01870485 | Show recordbag



so, because, in your opinion, option B sounds more likely,
that means that a 757 would only create a 16 ft hole in the
pentagon? jesus christ man you are exactly the kind of
person who eats up everything the government throws at you
with a shit-eating grin.


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2006-04-01 11:45 [#01870692]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



i think the idea that the US government had some sort of
hand in the 9/11 attacks is nonsense and utterly
reprehensible.

however, there's enough evidence to show that they had
knowledge about it prior to it happening and did nothing to
stop it. that's a given by now.

i'll watch this documentary but i'm worried it'll be a
conspiracy theory crock of bullshit..


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2006-04-01 11:55 [#01870697]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



oh dear, they're going on about the planes not actually
being commercial airliners

ok *bullshit*


 

offline redrum from the allman brothers band (Ireland) on 2006-04-01 12:08 [#01870707]
Points: 12878 Status: Addict



read this before taking anything from that bullshit
video into consideration.

analysis from real physicists, not just some guy saying "the
force of impact would've caused all the jet fuel to
evaporate immediately" and knowing you'll believe it
straight off.


 

offline OK on 2006-04-01 13:08 [#01870725]
Points: 4791 Status: Lurker



the thing was done in hollywood style, only american minds
could think about something like that.

there's a lot of suspicious things in 9/11. mainly:

a) financial operations the days before.
b) the pentagon thing.
c) it happened.



 

offline rezpeni on 2006-04-01 13:31 [#01870739]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



"if the scale of the crime was so "large" why did they haul
up the wreckage of the wtcs under armed guard and then flog
it to the far east for cheap scrap? no analysis, no
nothing? "

Because the rubble was toxic and they wanted to keep people
from grabbing peices of it as grisly souviners?

"and they originally said there'd be no commission, only
after pressure from families of victims did they open one,
it was a total joke and they fronted Henry Kissinger as
it's
front man!"

This has more to do with Bush's fear of being held up in a
bad light than somebody being worried about them finding out
some X-Files secret.

"so, because, in your opinion, option B sounds more likely,
that means that a 757 would only create a 16 ft hole in the
pentagon? jesus christ man you are exactly the kind of
person who eats up everything the government throws at you
with a shit-eating grin."

Read this first: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I know you will probably think snopes is in on the
conspiracy, but humor me. The other thing is that conspiracy
theorist always point to the fact that the plane struck the
only rennovated and reinforced portion of the building, and
then say the scale of the destruction is some sort of clue
to a conspiracy. Seems a bit like trying to have your cake
and eat it too.

I dislike Bush and crew as much as anyone. There is so much
legitimate shady shit to look into in regards to prewar Iraq
intelligence, torture, warentless wiretapping, the list goes
on and on. Why get distracted by all this conspiracy junk
when there is real stuff to beat them up with?


 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-04-01 16:10 [#01870809]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker | Followup to redrum: #01870707



redrum - do your homework before you believe the
"experts" - the guy who wrote that piece was exposed as
being the cousin of the director of homeland security. he
then admitted himself.



 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-04-01 16:17 [#01870817]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker



"Because the rubble was toxic and they wanted to keep people

from grabbing peices of it as grisly souviners?"

toxic from what exactly? don't say asbestos cos fema said
the area was safe - even though it wasn't. the debris was
under armed guard, who's going to steal it? the whole area
was sectioned off

No steel building has ever fallen from fire and yet three
did in one day... check building 7 out... remember it
had only two small fires admittedly, and yet the owner says
the fire dept "pulled" it - how? it takes days if not weeks
to rig a building for demolition

and building 7 was full of govt agencies like the cia, fbi,
dia, nsa and on and on

the whole thing stinks



 

offline Zeus from San Francisco (United States) on 2006-04-01 17:12 [#01870849]
Points: 14042 Status: Lurker | Followup to jamesa: #01870809



LOL!

"Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece.
When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said,
"I don't know.""


 

offline bogala from NYC (United States) on 2006-04-01 18:21 [#01870868]
Points: 5125 Status: Regular



The wtc buildings were full of dry wall. That shit burns
like a hay stack.


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-04-01 19:41 [#01870883]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



"toxic from what exactly? don't say asbestos cos fema said
the area was safe"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Pot
ential_health_effects
From Wikipedia:
Thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the
collapse of the Twin Towers included asbestos, lead, and
mercury, as well as unprecedented levels of dioxin and PAHs
from the fires which burned for three months. This has led
to debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers,
as well as some residents, students, and office workers of
Lower Manhattan and nearby Chinatown.

"No steel building has ever fallen from fire and yet three
did in one day..."

A fire is one thing, a jumbo jet full of fuel going at 400
miles an hour into a building is another thing. Apples and
oranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse

Seriously, why does every descrepency instantly lead people
to believe there is some huge dark conspiracy?

"redrum - do your homework before you believe the
"experts" - the guy who wrote that piece was exposed as
being the cousin of the director of homeland security. he
then admitted himself. "

Don't know if you bothered to read the link I posted before
but you might try giving it a look, it really is a great
explanation about the physics behind the collapse:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-04-02 17:07 [#01871246]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker



FEMA denied the area was toxic - therefore you
can't use it as your argument for why the scrap was shipped
off so quick.

if the fires were so hot, why was the smoke pouring out
black (no huge flames) and people can be seen in the
holes?

and the construction manager of the wtc's disagree with you,
the buildings were designed to withstand planes hitting them

video

providing evidence from an open source encyclopedia is
probably the least reliable source of information


 

offline jamesa from United Kingdom on 2006-04-02 17:21 [#01871253]
Points: 1080 Status: Lurker



and PBS, the source of one of you links, receives federal
funding on top of donations from individuals, therefore, any
information they provide on the matter can not be trusted.



 

online big from lsg on 2006-04-02 17:24 [#01871255]
Points: 23729 Status: Lurker | Followup to redrum: #01870707 | Show recordbag



it needs to evaporate, a pool of liquid kerosine won't
ignite, i saw on tv once


 

offline jackeroffer from Aruba on 2006-04-02 17:35 [#01871258]
Points: 1038 Status: Lurker



"and PBS, the source of one of you links, receives federal
funding on top of donations from individuals, therefore,
any
information they provide on the matter can not be trusted.
"

not only is that a factor, but in the PBS documentary "why
the towers fell" they clearly omit the central steel column
frame of the building. They act like it completely doesn't
exist. Also they say fire was able to bend and elasticize
the steel because the airplane impact cause all of the fire
retardant to "fall off" the steel columns. If the tower fell
because of a bending and lose of integrity in the steel ,
which is near impossible because steel needs a temperature
of at least 1500 degrees to elasticize, then it would have
fallen more slowly instead of a near freefall collapse. It
fell a mere 1 second longer than if you held a piece of
steel at the hieght of the tower and let it drop through an
actual vacuum.
Wouldn't the floors below cause some resistance if it was
indeed a pancake collapse? Its strange to me that concrete
and steel almost have the same resistance as air if you
believe the official story, because it defies the laws of
physics.
Can the weight of the floors above cause everything below it
to be literally powderized and then carried in the air as
far as Ney jersey?



 

offline jackeroffer from Aruba on 2006-04-02 17:38 [#01871259]
Points: 1038 Status: Lurker | Followup to bogala: #01870868



"The wtc buildings were full of dry wall. That shit burns
like a hay stack. "

thats true, except if you listen to the firefighter tapes
you can hear several firefighters saying they think the fire
could be easily controlled with "2 lines" within one hour.

not only that but the fire caused by the debris inside
(desks, computers, carpet, walls, etc) cannot get hot enough
to melt or bend steel. Sure it might have caused a partial
collapse with pieces of the building falling off. But it is
physically impossible for it to have caused the building to
freefall collapse in 7 seconds.


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-04-02 17:48 [#01871263]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



Maybe you notice I am posting links to sites like Wikipedia
(which if you bother to look at the bottom lists its
sources), Snopes, PBS, etc. and you are posting links to
conspiracy sites and blogs. So let's not argue about
reliable sources of information.

"FEMA denied the area was toxic - therefore you
can't use it as your argument for why the scrap was shipped

off so quick."

How long should the rubble have been left around to satisfy
the conspiracy theorists? The Nova documentary I've been
posting the link to describes how a team of engineers
inspected the rubble to figure out exactly why the buildings
collapsed. Apparently any conclusion that doesn't lead to
some ludicrious far flung conspiracy will always leave a
segment of people unsatisfied. It seems to me your problem
is less about how long the rubble was left around than it is
about the rational conclusions the engineers reached.

BTW, here is a Sierra Club report on how toxic all that junk
was: http://www.sierraclub.org/groundzero/

"and the construction manager of the wtc's disagree with
you,
the buildings were designed to withstand planes hitting them
"

Obviously he was wrong and again, this link explains why:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
I'm sure this Dr. from MIT is probably in on the conspiracy
as well.


 

offline rezpeni on 2006-04-02 18:18 [#01871276]
Points: 333 Status: Lurker



"and PBS, the source of one of you links, receives federal
funding on top of donations from individuals, therefore, any

information they provide on the matter can not be trusted."

Hah, have you ever watched an episode of Frontline? PBS is
10x harder on the Bush administration and goverment agencies
than the mainstream media. Or maybe that is what they want
us to think? OOoooOOOooo


 


Messageboard index