Loose Change

Well, today in English class we watched a video that one of my classmates had found on the internet that talked about how 9/11/01 was all stage, and was all part of a plan by the gov't and that no planes were hijacked, no cell phone calls were made from planes, etc.

It states many things to prove that 9/11 didn't happen, and has proof to back it up.

The video is about an hour and a half long but it is much wrth the time to watch it. It really makes you think.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ge+2nd+edition

this is a link to the video, but the site the video is from is www.loosechange911.com

Please watch the video and be amazed, also if you have already seen this...please post your views thoughts on it.

-NC

It's been a while since I watched it, mind summarising it?

Oh, and while your at it, please explain how hundreds of eyewitnesses were all mistaken, why the US government would do this, and if they did, why not use actual airplanes?

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

It states many things to prove that 9/11 didn't happen, and has proof to back it up.

If none of those things explain where the Twin Towers went, then watching it is a waste of time.

It's not that literal the towers were destroyed, people really died and everything, it is just that the video is showing that the Gov't was behind it all and how they engineered the entire scheme to get billons of dollars in gold and other forms of money such as insurance.

Real Boeing Aircraft were used and the did hit the towers, but it talked about how a airplane could not have hit he Pentagon, common sense/logic can tell you that by watching the video. e.x- The hole where the "plane" supposedly hit the Pentagon was only 16ft large and the lane has a wingspan of like a 140 feet, and there was no remains of a plane where it hit. only just blown up parts of the building.

Stuff like that, but they go into futher detail to explain all of this, also they use physics, video, photos, eyewitness statements of people that heard explosions, after the planes hit the towers.

I'm not gonna sit here and give an entire summary of the video b/c there is too much stuff in it to summerize, and the video is there, so if you would like to know what it says, watch it.

-NC

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

It's not that literal the towers were destroyed, people really died and everything, it is just that the video is showing that the Gov't was behind it all and how they engineered the entire scheme to get billons of dollars in gold and other forms of money such as insurance.

Real Boeing Aircraft were used and the did hit the towers, but it talked about how a airplane could not have hit he Pentagon, common sense/logic can tell you that by watching the video. e.x- The hole where the "plane" supposedly hit the Pentagon was only 16ft large and the lane has a wingspan of like a 140 feet, and there was no remains of a plane where it hit. only just blown up parts of the building.

Stuff like that, but they go into futher detail to explain all of this, also they use physics, video, photos, eyewitness statements of people that heard explosions, after the planes hit the towers.

I'm not gonna sit here and give an entire summary of the video b/c there is too much stuff in it to summerize, and the video is there, so if you would like to know what it says, watch it.

Edit:
Also, if they went through the trouble of using real planes to hit the WTC, why not use a real plane to hit the Pentagon? To create a missile and then pretend it's a plane involves hundreds of people, you'd have to fool thousands of witnesses, and it would cost massive amounts of money. Why is it that none of these people have come forward to say that they had a hand in it? After all, Watergate had, what, 5 people in on it? And it couldn't be kept a secret for even a week.

Edit 2: So they do beleive in controlled demolition, then? I have several questions.
1. How on earth were all the wires and explosives hidden?
2. Why bother crashing planes into them at all?
3. Why do the 'squibs' that so many people mention just happen to look exactly like dust being blown out by a collapsing building?
4. Why wouldn't there be an explosion? You have fires, you have jet fuel, those two combined will explode, and, in fact, sent an explosion down the elevator shafts.

Oh, and about the 'no remains of a plane' line, try here

After watching many many conspiracy sites/videos and such and as many debunking sites I still cannot make myself an idea. To me there are too many coincidences and other "oddities" and especially with the new releases of the pentagone videos which prove absolutely NOTHING like Im sorry but if you see that as proving that a 757 hit the building you are as crazy as the peoples who think its a flying saucer... Also the government is hiding so much like the tapes of the Highway camera and the Sheraton Hotel who had a perfect view of the crash whatever it was... And you want me to beleive that the best footage they can show us is from a 2 frame/sec security camera... and also Im supposed to beleive that one of the most secure building in the world is equipped with 2 frames/sec cameras... Im absolutely NOT a conspiracy theorist... But I do beleive there is something someone isnt/doesnt want to tell us.

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

Real Boeing Aircraft were used and the did hit the towers, but it talked about how a airplane could not have hit he Pentagon, common sense/logic can tell you that by watching the video. e.x- The hole where the "plane" supposedly hit the Pentagon was only 16ft large and the lane has a wingspan of like a 140 feet, and there was no remains of a plane where it hit. only just blown up parts of the building.
-NC

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Also, for every eyewitness who says they saw a small plane, I can show you 10 witnesses who said they saw a large jet. Eyewitness accounts are fundamentally flawed, yet when the majority of people lean in a general direction, I think its safe to take their word.

I suggest everyone who watches Loose Change read this critique. NobleCucco, please read it, and share it with your classmates. If you don't, you're not being fair to them.

Loose Change and its supporters have a tendency to leave out the facts that matter, and only using the ones that support their conspiracy theory. By doing this, they're just deluding themselves from any sort of objective thought. Some of them have even refused to read the critique I gave. I've read some of the arguments on their message board, and I've read some of the articles put out by "professors" on the subject. It's all BS.


However, you probably don't think it's BS. So I'm inviting you to take some of the evidence you think is crucial and posting it here. I obviously don't have time to refute every point brought up in that film, and I doubt you have time to back up every point. So pick a couple that you think seem important, and I'll be happy to discuss them.

Wow thats very interesting, this video does have lot of great points and interesting things. That one guy who was fired 10 days later for explaining what couldnt have happend. Anyways havent watched all of it, but i will pick up where i left off.

It does make you question certin things.

I actually watched the like 1h 30m version....and I actually thought it was all fake too. They stated some good reasons against it, and I actually think thats its fake...Kinda like that whole landing on the moon conspiricy, and, I dont like bush, so I'm for the fake part!!

WooHoo GO ME!

EDIT: I dont think it was from loose change Mad Hatter guy, but it mighta probably linked it from that site, unless there are other sites.

I'm not going to try and prove you wong, b/c I don't believe that it was all fake, i just think that they gave very good evidence to support their theory, I do believe that maybe somethings they may have said like the Gov't having some hand in it is true. I do believe though that the planes were hijacked and were flown into the buildings.

I also believe that there is two sides to every story, just lkike this, you hae Avery's view, and also the many others of the world that saw the planes hit the towers. It is all in point-of-view.

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

I'm not going to try and prove you wong, b/c I don't believe that it was all fake, i just think that they gave very good evidence to support their theory, I do believe that maybe somethings they may have said like the Gov't having some hand in it is true. I do believe though that the planes were hijacked and were flown into the buildings.

I also believe that there is two sides to every story, just lkike this, you hae Avery's view, and also the many others of the world that saw the planes hit the towers. It is all in point-of-view.

That is where you are wrong, this is a matter of fact. To support accusations like those made in loose change you need to not only have evidence, but have good evidence that stands up to examination, something loose change does not.

I (surprise) agree with MH on this, read the link he posted, print it off, give it to your teacher to read, otherwise you are knowingly letting people believe a lie.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I (surprise) agree with MH on this, read the link he posted, print it off, give it to your teacher to read, otherwise you are knowingly letting people believe a lie.

I'm not letting people believe a lie, people have something, it is called freedom of choice, if they choose to believe this, then so be it, I'm not to choose what they believe and what they don't believe.

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

I'm not letting people believe a lie, people have something, it is called freedom of choice, if they choose to believe this, then so be it, I'm not to choose what they believe and what they don't believe.

No, but you're willfuly keeping evidence that may change their views from them, allowing them to make decisions based on ignorance. It seems rather obvious that we've changed you from being pro conspiracy to on the fence, or at least shaken your belief some, and that took almost no time, why not tell your classmates the truth, rather then having them believe a lie of this magnitude?

Honestly though...we don't know the truth, we only know what we have seen and been told...seeing isn't always believeing and you cannot trust all that you hear.

I did not choose to display this video to the class, one of my other classmates did, therefore I am not trying to change anyones views or alter their opionions.

Yes you can waver someone into makeing them choose a side, but in reality, it is all up to them that makes the choice. It is not a decision based on ignorance, but a choice based on what they believe is right, that is not a choice made on ignorance, but one made on self- belief and thought through the persons on will.

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

Honestly though...we don't know the truth, we only know what we have seen and been told...seeing isn't always believeing and you cannot trust all that you hear.

As this movie shows that's true, but when you have direct evidence it's a rather silly claim to make. By your logic gravity isn't real.

I did not choose to display this video to the class, one of my other classmates did, therefore I am not trying to change anyones views or alter their opionions.

You are, passivley, you are allowing them to come to a conclusion with only half of the eivdence, when you know the other half. Would you let your friend jump out of an airplane without a parachute because he saw a movie saying that he'd survive? No? Then why are you letting your class make a decision without all of the information that could perminatly affect how they think of people and of governments in general?

Yes you can waver someone into makeing them choose a side, but in reality, it is all up to them that makes the choice. It is not a decision based on ignorance, but a choice based on what they believe is right, that is not a choice made on ignorance, but one made on self- belief and thought through the persons on will.

No, this is a case of facts. Beleif does not enter into it. You are allowing perfectly innocent people to be accused of murder, all on the basis of 'belief'?