911 Loose Change(sept 11 documentry)

I discovered this documentry through a friend who told me about so now I'm doing the same to spread the word. Please watch this and don't just blow it off.(well if you're American that is, otherwise this doesn't really interest you). But this is about the theory that the American gov. was behind the 911 attacks. I'm not gonna explain it all here caus ethat would take way to long, but please watch this video, it will convince, it has tons and tons of valid evidence. make sure you have time to watch this though its abotu 1hr 21min.
here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1+loose+change and sorry if this has been disscussed before, I looked didn't find anything.

Wow. That was a brilliant documentary. It's like that whole "moon landing" conspiracy. I'm not sure what to think of it, though...

Yeah I watched it. I was pretty convinced at first until I saw this. (thanks MH)

Loose change is a case of starting with a conclusion and then filling in the answers to the questions. Not to say they are wrong, but it's a very unreliable way of reaching the truth.

Originally Posted by Jodd

Wow. That was a brilliant documentary. It's like that whole "moon landing" conspiracy. I'm not sure what to think of it, though...

Yeah, except tbis has alot more evidence to support than the moon landing one. And yeah it is a great documentry, well put together, especially when it shows thos explosions going off in the tower as it collapses. You guys can think what you want but all of this evidence convinces me 99.9% that this is all true. You just can't trust polticians.

Conspiracy theories always manage to make me laugh.

That being said, I have no faith in this theory. It is full of many lies and contradictions that make up many conspiracy theories. Really, 9-11 was caused by the fact that we had faulty securtiy and that there were undergorund Muslim extremist groups operating in our country, all had ties to Al-Quieda. These situations were viewrd by very few passerby and when they had called the FBI about it, they were denied. The WTC was bombed before, people. 1993, anybody? After this plan had failed, Al-Quieda considered crashing planes into targets other than the Pentagon and the WTC. The CIA headquartes was one of these targets, for example. Fast-foward to 2001, before 9-11 happend, when the USS Colt (I think that was the name) was bombed by a small boat packed with explosives. Bin Laden had claimed responsibilty for this and that enough, was a sign that something big was going to happen.

Silly, silly, silly. I know some people who saw the plane hitting the Pentagon.

The documentary fails to account for the people that died on those flights that supposedly never crashed. Without this evidence, any attempt to discount the crashes as "never happening" is automatically inconclusive.

I'll have to look at it later, but that's funny you just now posted this because my Uncle Joey told me about it just two days ago and we discussed it a bit. Some of what he told me it presented is obviously made to prove something which it does not. If I get time, I'll go through and systematically disect the "evidence" haha.. But apparently it convinced him pretty well--I'll give it that much.

My beliefs are that this conspiracy is false. I just can not believe that the government would do something like this. Why? Because we as Americans are too proud to do something like sacrifice our own innocent people just for a reason to go into war. But on the off chance that the government did stage the whole thing, then that is just sick. I believe only if the conspiracy is true, that those who made up and took part in this whole plan should be hunted and killed instantly. Maybe taking some in for questioning then killed shortly after. Only if the conspiracy is true of course. I have seen some of the film but only parts of it. Some of it is convincing but other parts are not so that is what makes me believe that it is false.

Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia

I'll have to look at it later, but that's funny you just now posted this because my Uncle Joey told me about it just two days ago and we discussed it a bit. Some of what he told me it presented is obviously made to prove something which it does not. If I get time, I'll go through and systematically disect the "evidence" haha.. But apparently it convinced him pretty well--I'll give it that much.

The whole point behind these documentaries is that, at first glance, they do seem convincing. Then you start thinking about them and see the problems. Some people never think about them, they just go on believing them, even telling others about them without examining the claims. Unfortunately, they throw out so many claims that often you need to know someone who knows more about the topic to point out some obvious problems, so that even if you do think about it you can still fall for some of their more plausible lies/mistakes.

Yeah, GDwarf--my thoughts exactly. Joey kept telling me about things that had to do with Physics and my "Science Sense" (as I call it) was tingling.

That's why it's important that people are taught to critically analyze EVERYthing. NOTHing need be taken at face value. In fact, it is often "wrong" to do so, I feel.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

The documentary fails to account for the people that died on those flights that supposedly never crashed. Without this evidence, any attempt to discount the crashes as "never happening" is automatically inconclusive.

What LionHarted said was the very first thing that crossed my mind when they mentioned manipulating the passengers' voices. What happened to the actual passengers?

I don't believe this theory, but I am glad I watched it. It made me more inclined to investigate what I hear, even if it's from the most trusted people.

If you watch it without turning off your urge to think critically, I'm sure you'll notice many of its flaws. In the mean time, check out this critique -- you're doing yourself a disservice if you only look at the one side. http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Originally Posted by Nox

Conspiracy theories always manage to make me laugh.

That being said, I have no faith in this theory. It is full of many lies and contradictions that make up many conspiracy theories.

Mind pointing out some of those lies and contradictions? cause I didn't see any.

Originally Posted by Gokussj1420

My beliefs are that this conspiracy is false. I just can not believe that the government would do something like this. Why? Because we as Americans are too proud to do something like sacrifice our own innocent people just for a reason to go into war.

How can you not believe that a gov. would do something like this. If you look at our the U.S.'s past leaders you'll notice that there are tons of occasions were the gov has done stuff that they shouldn't for stupid reasons. And majority of politicions are corrupt so that makes it even more easy to believe.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

The documentary fails to account for the people that died on those flights that supposedly never crashed. Without this evidence, any attempt to discount the crashes as "never happening" is automatically inconclusive.

actually they do talk about that, go back and check. And if it crashed, explain how the plane that was supposedly crashed, had landed in another airport on the otherside of the U.S.

Originally Posted by Trico

If you watch it without turning off your urge to think critically, I'm sure you'll notice many of its flaws. In the mean time, check out this critique -- you're doing yourself a disservice if you only look at the one side. http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

I did look at that before aswell, and I personally see alot more flaws in that than I do in loose change.


And for all you dissbelievers, explain a few things to me, how is it that there are no remants of the plane that hit the pentagon? its impossible for it to have been completely vaporized. why is the hole in the side of the Pentagon tosmall for it to have been hit by that type of plane? why is it that the parts that did supposedly survive unlike the rest of the plane don't match up with that type of model that they say crashed? Why did it let out a shockwave when there was an explosion that could be felt miles away, when jet fuel would not have done that? Why can we see explosions going off in the WTC as it explodes? How is it that it collapsed in only about 20 min when in the past many buildings that were damaged in virtually the same way and even had weaker structures and burned for hours didn't collapse? Why did the gov. hide the black boxes from the planes, and lie and say they were destroyed? oh and explain the gov. documents that talk about staging fake terrorist attacks. If you didn't notice there is far more proof supporting this theory than what the gov. is saying. Their story is full of way more holes than this.

Originally Posted by Freedom G

Mind pointing out some of those lies and contradictions? cause I didn't see any.

The one contradiction I see in the movie is the goverments reason for setting up 9/11, which was to remove the rare currancy stored in the WTC, thus the title "Loose Chage". The fact that the currancy in the WTC was destoryed in the wreck contradicts the idea of remvoing it.

As for the lies, they claim to interview people that were victims of 9/11, yet their voices are disorted. They also interview so-called FBI agnets and CIA agents. If anything, jsut telling the public that you are in the CIA is pretty much a violation of their terms of privacy. Like I said, I have little faith in any conspiracy theory, espically one that deals with a tragic event.

Originally Posted by Freedom G

And for all you dissbelievers, explain a few things to me, how is it that there are no remants of the plane that hit the pentagon?

There are, they've been photographed.

why is the hole in the side of the Pentagon tosmall for it to have been hit by that type of plane?

How do you know it's too small?

why is it that the parts that did supposedly survive unlike the rest of the plane don't match up with that type of model that they say crashed?

They do, again, there are photos.

Why did it let out a shockwave when there was an explosion that could be felt miles away, when jet fuel would not have done that?

Jet fuel is very explosive, as for the being heard miles away, I'd want to look into a) Who said it was, and b) if that was possible or likely from a fuel-air explosion.

Why can we see explosions going off in the WTC as it explodes?

Are you referring to the puffs of dust? That's easy to explain, as the building fell air was forced out of any opening, it took dust with it.

How is it that it collapsed in only about 20 min when in the past many buildings that were damaged in virtually the same way and even had weaker structures and burned for hours didn't collapse?

Define weaker, give examples, and show me one where it was jet fuel burning and exploding after the building got hit by a plane. On top of that, it the building that lasted longer must've been built along the same lines as the WTC and be of comparable height, all of those factors drastically influence how long a building can stay standing.

Why did the gov. hide the black boxes from the planes, and lie and say they were destroyed?

Source?

oh and explain the gov. documents that talk about staging fake terrorist attacks.

The government hires think tanks to do nothing but think of any possible event and how to react to it, literally millions of ideas have been proposed by these groups, almost none of them are ever used.

If you didn't notice there is far more proof supporting this theory than what the gov. is saying. Their story is full of way more holes than this.

What holes?
Two planes hit the WTC, one hit the Pentagon. The plane collisions caused the WTC to collapse, a terrorist sect confessed to committing the crime. I fail to see any hole here, as all of those are confirmed facts.

Also, if you're planning a conspiracy to knock down two buildings with planes, why not knock it down with planes? Controlled demolition would take months to set up, would be incredibly easy to notice, and would detract from the validity of the story.

Finally, why do you believe loose change? As the link posted earlier mentions, it has 81 errors of fact, 345 instances of unsupported conjecture and logical fallacies. On top of that they quote mine, ignore most of the evidence, and do other such things. It doesn't matter if you feel that the government story has more holes, you still shouldn't trust a source with a track record like that.