Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Three Tricks and Distortions In Loose Change

Be aware of the following tricks and distortions in Loose Change:

1. Watch for printed text. The clear implication is that you can trust it because it's in print somewhere. Many, many of the citations shown are from conspiracy kook websites. We even caught them passing something off as coming from Newsweek, when in actually it was from a blog that claimed to have "transcribed it" from their website before it was taken down (Newsweek is in on the conspiracy).

2. Watch for secondary sourcing.

In Jim Marrs' book Inside Job, April [Gallop] claims...


If they checked out April Gallop for themselves with the help of Google they'd discover that she gets upset when she smells jet fuel at an airport, that she's turned into a crusader against illegal immigration because of 9-11 (several of the hijackers were in the country illegally), that she in short gives every indication that she believes the Pentagon was indeed hit by American Airlines Flight 77.

3. Watch for selective quotes which are intended to give the impression that the speaker supports the conspiracy theory. Wally Miller, Somerset County Coroner, comes in for a lot of this with four carefully selected quotes used to make it sound as if there was no plane there, and there were no human remains there.

For example, consider these two quotes (around 57:45):

"It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it."

"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there."


From the Washington Post, we do indeed find both those precise quotes. But look at what Miller then said:



That's dishonest. They found two short quotes that suited their purpose, and ignored the rest, which completely contradicts everything in the movie about Flight 93.

76 Comments:

At 16 May, 2006 07:52, Blogger MeToo said...

I was bothered right from the beginning when the filmmakers seemed to be saying that the entire government was gunning for the WTC because of some graphics on a couple government reports.

They cite two terrorism reports – one from FEMA the other from DOJ. And they subtly imply something nefarious about the reports REAL purpose because both had cover drawings that featured "the World Trade Center in crosshairs" (duh-duh-duh-DUM!)

Well duh!

The World Trade Center was BOMBED in 1993!!!
It was the largest modern-day interational terrorist strike to hit this country on its own soil!
Of course the image of (what was then) a singularly shocking and frightening act of terrorism to Americans would be the symbol of anti-terrorism efforts by law enforcement and emergency reponse.

 
At 16 May, 2006 10:22, Blogger Pat said...

Wait a minute--the WTC was bombed in 1993? Why don't I know about that? Oh, I know, because Dylan Avery never mentioned it in Loose Change, so it must not have happened! ;)

 
At 16 May, 2006 18:31, Blogger dman said...

Have a copy of the infamous FEMA
guide - was given it when took
class on "WEAPONS Of MASS
DESTRUCTION - OPERATIONAL LEVEL"
Took class 6 months before 9/11 at
local fire academy, instructor
pointed out the since terrorists
had already hit building, would be
logical to assume would come back
and must be ready. Live in NJ few
miles west of NYC and couple see
Twin Towers from my home.

 
At 19 May, 2006 20:48, Blogger Ninja said...

Dylan Avery does in fact mention the 1993 bombings in Loose Change: 2nd Edition.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:12, Blogger sumy23 said...

This blog is for defending corruption.

If you post any real info on this blog they will just delete your post. They really only encourage weak info. Anything that they can't debunk gets deleted. Dont waste your time here.

 
At 22 May, 2006 08:15, Blogger Pat said...

Sumy23, feel free to prove yourself wrong.

 
At 22 May, 2006 08:19, Blogger Pat said...

And Ninja is right; there is a brief mention of the 1993 bombing, not in the timeline leading up to 9-11 (where it should be), but in the discussion of seismic evidence:

"The 1993 bombing of the WTC did not even register, because it was not coupled to the ground."

 
At 24 May, 2006 04:55, Blogger TC said...

"The 1993 bombing of the WTC did not even register, because it was not coupled to the ground."

I know about a dozen FDNY guys who would be more than happy to "fact-check" the moronic ass who let that spill from his lips.

 
At 03 July, 2006 07:00, Blogger Shebbies said...

A lot of this come from, No one can possibly believe that our United States Government could possibly do this. Its a Theroy...

You never know... Ok MAYBE not all the Loose Change information is true! But what if Most of it is True! Then what?

Our Government isnt all as sweet as pie as everyone is making it out to be on here.

They can get away with a lot of things!

 
At 15 July, 2006 20:00, Blogger gramekeln said...

This is nutts. When you watch the movie, you get caught up in it. Then when you think logically about it, It's nutts. The puffs of smoke from "controlled demolitions" I immediatly thought were pressure blasts, which turns out to be true. The part from the movie that still bothers me is the video tape of the pentagon impact. You would think the pentagon would have better coverage of it's own building. And, why didn't they publish until just recently the fram with the nose of the jet in it?

 
At 15 July, 2006 20:00, Blogger gramekeln said...

This is nutts. When you watch the movie, you get caught up in it. Then when you think logically about it, It's nutts. The puffs of smoke from "controlled demolitions" I immediatly thought were pressure blasts, which turns out to be true. The part from the movie that still bothers me is the video tape of the pentagon impact. You would think the pentagon would have better coverage of it's own building. And, why didn't they publish until just recently the fram with the nose of the jet in it?

 
At 07 August, 2006 11:55, Blogger shopgirl7 said...

What are you talking about with taht second quote? It's actually very confusing, because when he says "there were no bodies" does he mean live bodies, or no bodies at all? A coroner is someone who investigates dead bodies...not someone searching for live bodies. So, this quote is vague and Loose Change could very well have deciphered it correctly...there were no bodies at the site.

 
At 07 August, 2006 11:55, Blogger shopgirl7 said...

What are you talking about with taht second quote? It's actually very confusing, because when he says "there were no bodies" does he mean live bodies, or no bodies at all? A coroner is someone who investigates dead bodies...not someone searching for live bodies. So, this quote is vague and Loose Change could very well have deciphered it correctly...there were no bodies at the site.

 
At 17 August, 2006 01:23, Blogger mike said...

i think a lot of the events can be looked at individually and disputed, or just passed off as unusual/coincidental... but the point of the movie was to show you the big picture, it was to show you that ALL of the events, TOGETHER, are a bit suspicious. Any American history professor, or even buff, will tell you that American history is riddled with corruption, lies, cover-ups, illegal activity, you name it, they're into it. I'm not saying that the government doesn't do a lot of good, it certainly does both, and I love America with all my heart, so don't you dare rob me of the title Patriot. I want this country to succeed, I LIVE here for cryin out loud. But its foolish and naive to put it past the government to at least have their "invisible hand" in it. The simple matter is that we may be being fooled, and hell, we all fall for it... everyone lives in their own bubble, warm and comfortable, few see any point in questioning "it", whatever it is. And to the few doubters/teeters who will listen: It's not about two terrorism reports, and its not about someone's misunderstood account... please don't pick out a pamphlet and a hick to represent the ideas in this movie. Look at the "evidence", i.e. the hole in the pentagon, the buildings that withstood fires that lasted much longer, the amount of money that was made off of this (gold missing, insurance policy, put-options), the people that directly benefited, the people that could have made it possible and their relationship to the people that would say go ahead, the LIVE terrorists, the governments vague responses/NO responses, the secrecy, the missing plane parts, bodies... It's not so much a conspiracy theory anymore, as it is something many Americans believe to be somewhat true, based on many factors, like "truth". The media plays a big part of the whole cherade in helping mask the situation. Yes, even the media is in on it, funny enough, its the same people up there controlling that too (look it up). The point is, governments do things that no one would be proud of, ask the government, they'll tell ya.

 
At 17 August, 2006 02:28, Blogger Zarchoff said...

I am still confused. Tell me again how the vast majority of the 120,000 kg of Boeing 757, crew, passengers, luggage etc can be "vaporized" after hitting the Pentagon? If the jet fuel can burn so hot as to "vaporize" the engines, how does it manage to not "vaporize" the engines when the are operating normally in flight, under full throttle at takeoff, etc etc?

 
At 18 August, 2006 22:34, Blogger Polock said...

I'm curious about the 2 planes that hit the towers. Was wreckage found of either plane found in the rubble of the buildings? what happened to the people on the planes? could they have disentagrated? If so, isnt it logical that the 3rd plane that hit the pentigon vaporise?

But what do i know im just a polock!

 
At 24 August, 2006 08:25, Blogger Jim Lippard said...

Mike:

If you thought that "Loose Change" presented all the facts and gave you the big picture, you are sadly mistaken. What's notable about 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that they actually give you very *little* of the big picture--they pull out selected items they consider anomalous, and ignore everything else. Take a look at the 9/11 Commission Report, at books like Gerald Posner's _Why America Slept_, James Bamford's _A Pretext for War_, and websites which have attempted to collect all of the background information on the 9/11 attacks and radical Islam, and you'll see that there is a long history of events that led up to 9/11--a history which the conspiracy theorists almost completely ignore.

 
At 27 August, 2006 02:40, Blogger Jerod C. Batte said...

Nooooobody's saying our government is all "sweet pie" as one poster said it. NOR is anyone claiming that our government hasn't done some very bad things.

Anybody remember MK-ULTRA? Testing the mentally deficient with nuclear materials? Our numerous assassination attempts on Castro and the Bay of Pigs? (Okay, those last two were partly justified, just poorly executed...) What about supporting slavery and denying women's sufferage? Yeah, our government has done some very bad things in the past. Which government hasn't? Didn't Canada once try to throw down with us over 200 years ago? What about the wars Mexico fought? The drug cartels who practically run its government to this day? What about the Crusades of Europe? The numerous Muslim wars of the past? Even the Holy Land -- Israel -- has had its share of moral blunders. Every known government has transgressed the basic moral laws in one way or another, for good or for ill.

HOWEVER, do any of you know how absolutely inept our government is? When my mother's eyesight got worse due to her medical conditions it took her and her lawyer years before she was finally granted the Federal medical and financial assistance she required. We're talking about the same government that almost wanted to close down the US Patent Office back 'round the turn of the century because they thought that everything useful had been invented (and the TV wasn't even out yet)! We're talking about the same gaggle of morons who gave us the Bay of Pigs! The barely-won war against Spain that Teddy Roosevelt built his career off of! The botched job in Vietnam!

Seeing those collosal failures and knowing how inept and inefficient our government truly is, do you honestly believe these guys are mentally capable of pulling off a grand conspiracy against the WTC when probably 75% of our Congressmen should either be voted out of office due to ineptitude or locked away for criminal stupidity given some of the laws they've put forth?? These guys are too stupid to pull something like this off! They may be smart, but they're educated fools.

Far as I'm concerned, I can see how the WTC hit could be an outside job pulled off by fanatic Muslims. I'm not saying they're smarter or better than our government; they just know how to quit debating in committee and get things done. That's why we sent our military into Afghanistan so soon after WTC; because they, too, know when to quit deliberating and get things done.

 
At 06 September, 2006 22:14, Blogger Kevin89 said...

If the government can't keep secret CIA prisons, data mining programs, and the collection of international banking transactions secret, what makes you think they could keep a lid on a conspiracy of this magnitude?

By the way... many engine parts in jet planes are made of titanium (such as fan blades) which would allow them to survive burning jet fuel.

 
At 08 September, 2006 10:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

"It became like a giant funeral service." Hmmm It doesn't refer to the bodies that are not there, it refers to the supposed crash scene. And yet you use this to prove Change is lying?? Please you really should examine basic English again before you try to use the later quotes in Mr. Miller's statement to try to prove Change is lying.

 
At 08 September, 2006 10:22, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Now the rest of you trying to use the "insiders in the govt. can't keep secrets or they are too inept" argument doesn't fly in the fast of history. Now here are a few examples:
1.Atomic bomb development.
2.Operation Paperclip
3.Operation Northwoods
4.Stealh fighter and bomber development.
5. The entire Iran/Contra scandal before it broke.
6. Able Danger
7. The list goes on and on so trying to state the govt. is too inept or too leaky is to ignore history. Now if people would state, "if the theorists stated insiders within the govt. etc. instead of using the statement the entire government they would not provide opportunities for people like you folks to try to discredit them.

 
At 08 September, 2006 18:11, Blogger CanadianContent83 said...

A little off topic, but to correct the gentleman who claimed Canada tried to "throw down" with America "over 200 years ago" must be refering to the War of 1812 where America was sore at Great Britian for some good, some bad reasons and through their declaration of War with Britan, launched raids into Canadian territory, Only to be repelled by Canadians who are wrongfully reffered to in history books as British(although Canada wasn't formally soverign until 1868, most peoples in Canada at the time thought of themselves as Canadian not British, and are Now My, and many other Canadians ancestors.)

On Topic

Until their is a true,independent,far reaching, and totally transparent investigation into 9/11, the official story is totally unexceptable for more reasons then I could write here, at the same time, it's important to stay relevant and not jump on every fringe theroy that comes out about 9/11,that hurst any chance of maybe getting real answers about the fate of 3,000 Free, Innocent Civilians whos deaths are used on a daily bais to justify things that are against the American Consitution in the name of Security. That is wrong, and Un-American.

 
At 08 September, 2006 18:11, Blogger CanadianContent83 said...

A little off topic, but to correct the gentleman who claimed Canada tried to "throw down" with America "over 200 years ago" must be refering to the War of 1812 where America was sore at Great Britian for some good, some bad reasons and through their declaration of War with Britan, launched raids into Canadian territory, Only to be repelled by Canadians who are wrongfully reffered to in history books as British(although Canada wasn't formally soverign until 1868, most peoples in Canada at the time thought of themselves as Canadian not British, and are Now My, and many other Canadians ancestors.)

On Topic

Until their is a true,independent,far reaching, and totally transparent investigation into 9/11, the official story is totally unexceptable for more reasons then I could write here, at the same time, it's important to stay relevant and not jump on every fringe theroy that comes out about 9/11,that hurst any chance of maybe getting real answers about the fate of 3,000 Free, Innocent Civilians whos deaths are used on a daily bais to justify things that are against the American Consitution in the name of Security. That is wrong, and Un-American.

 
At 11 September, 2006 14:02, Blogger the lurker said...

"Until their is a true,independent,far reaching, and totally transparent investigation into 9/11, the official story is totally unexceptable for more reasons then I could write here..."

YOu've made up your mind. The only things you'd find "transparent" are the same conclusions as yours. I feel sorry for you. Real structural engineers, civil engineers, chemical and fire specialists, and other people with real knowledge tell you that this film is crap, but it can't sway you. Do you stay up at night worrying about this? Why dont' they silence Dylan? A govt. this corrupt should have no qualms at all about having him "disappear", but he hasn't. Why not?

 
At 11 September, 2006 22:10, Blogger cptCanuck said...

I thought for sure that an associate of mine was joking when he said that he didnt believe that extremists were responsible for 9/11. Today after hearing one of the morons that believe this crap call into a radio show and debate an extremely intelligent radio host who also at first didnt believe the guy was serious and end up making an extreme ass of himself do to his lack of knowledge on the subject made me go searching for the film. I cant believe these fools have gotten the attention they have, they are at best semi intelligent but well spoken. In my opinion this started as an attempt to build a name for themselves and has grown to the point that they themselves believe the lies and manipulation they put in that film. There is a heavy hatred for the western world that has been building in the middle east since the creation of Israel and before. Isama Bin Laden recently made it very clear that there will be no negotiations with the west. That the war would end when the west is muslim. Idiots making films like this to get themselves on t.v does nothing more that weaken the western resolve at a time when it needs to be its strongest. Dylan Avery can rot in hell for what he has started. I am sorry for the rambling post but I was up late watching the news up here in Canada and had the misfortune of catching some of Dylans moronic supporters who say they are trying to bring out the truth in honour of saving the memory of the american people. Heres an idea for you. Turn off your computer. Wash your unwashed body. Change out of your 2 week old clothes. Come out of your moms basement and go for a walk.

 
At 15 September, 2006 10:10, Blogger The Yeti said...

How about instead of major studios producing films about 9-11, as nothing but a propaganda/"patriotic"/money-maker, we see more films like 'Loose Change' that wasn't made to make money. It's made to spread the word; and that word is truth. Now, I'm not saying that everything in the movie is the truth. What I'm saying is that every hole, every unanswered question, every bit of evidence that has been covered up, or 'not disclosed because of sensitive materials'- that's bullshit. This film asks ligitimate questions that NO ONE has answered yet, and some that have even been refused answers. That is unacceptable. If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding this information? If all of this is one "big conspiracy theory," why not prove us all wrong? With FACTS, not explanations. Why don't we look at information other than what the government tells us, other than what the media tells us. Why don't we get a non-biased, non-government funded report on key questions that have yet to be answered? I never try to convince anyone of a "conspiracy theory," but shouldn't we be at all skeptical of the coverups? Shouldn't we want to know the whole story? Shouldn't we want to know the truth? Wanting the truth does not make a conspiracy theorist. Disregarding legitimate questions, and choosing to ignore them simply because it's a 'conspiracy' is utter bullshit, and does not do justice to any of the victims of this plot.

 
At 16 September, 2006 13:12, Blogger History Lover said...

I haven't had the oppurtunity yet to entirely read through your other weak arguments refuting the evidence found in Loose Change's documentary, but I did read the entire Washington Post artice (above) from which you claim that Loose Change distorted the Shanksville County Coroner's quotes.
You have a link to the Post's article with a feed foreword message saying to look at the rest of what Miller said, and I'm confused. What was I supposed to find?
The rest of the article wrote about how families and friends of those on Flight 93 are still disturbed and upset because there have been no identifications, no personal belongings recovered, a slow FBI investigation and no questions to their answers; and this article was written a year after the attacks.

People, I don't WANT to believe that our government could responsible for causing the tragic deaths of thousands of Americans. Nobody does. But the fact of the matter is that FIVE YEARS after that horrific day, we, the American public, are just as clueless about the specifics of September 11th as we were that very morning.

However, looking at September 11th as a criminal case, which it is since it's a crime, I can't help but look at who would have the MEANS and the MOTIVE to do such a terrible thing, and I still cannot understand how a couple of guys in a sand hut in the desert could have pulled off such perfectly manuevered tragedy. No one aims to lessen the severity of the lives lost on 9/11, we just don't want their murderers to do just that; get away with murder.

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:50, Blogger lenox7 said...

History Lover said:

"You have a link to the Post's article with a feed foreword message saying to look at the rest of what Miller said, and I'm confused. What was I supposed to find?"

You were supposed to find the last sentence of the quote:

"He (the coroner) considers it to be the final resting place of 40 national heroes."

Why would he consider it to be a resting place of heroes if he thought there was no crash there?

The selective quoting by Loose Change was done to imply that because the coroner said there were no bodies there, that he believed there was no crash there, either.

The last sentence of the quote clearly demonstrates that he believed a crash occurred there - this is why it was ommitted from Loose Change

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:28, Blogger moreCORRUPTthanU said...

Maybe 911 was just an accident and bad luck. Everyone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe one pilot was sick, another drunk, another sucking off his accomplice, and the last rubbing out the easy one. Can you prove me wrong? I doubt it, none of you were on the plane, Bush wasn't on the plane, and Dylan Avery wasn't on the plane. None of you KNOW sh1t so quit acting like you do. Only thing all of you have is second hand information from a second hand source. Now delete my post you order taking pussy.

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:36, Blogger moreCORRUPTthanU said...

No disrespect to those who died in the events on 9/11/01. Only to those who make ILLEGITIMATE claims for or against the motives of their deaths and propel their own self righteousness. To whom that may concern.

 
At 21 September, 2006 18:26, Blogger moreCORRUPTthanU said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 September, 2006 18:30, Blogger moreCORRUPTthanU said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 September, 2006 20:03, Blogger Captain Den said...

Your kidding right? This was an inside job? The most incompetent President in history pulled off the biggest covert terrorist reverse hit in history and no one knew it? What Jerkoff started that assnine theory? Whats more who BELIEVES it? I work for the Government and I can assure you that on any given day the guy in one cubicle doesn't know whats going on in the cubicle next to his. After all this is the same President who screwed up Katrina, or was that an inside job too? Or the same guy who screwed up the Iraq war? Or is that part of some Skull and Bones intrigue as well?
Assclowns. "The Government" as we all refer to it is vastly made up of bureaucrats who's main job is making sure that the minimum gets accomplished so that they still have a job come Monday morning. It's 98% people you know, your friends & neighbors hardly the evildoers who conspire to commit mass murder. The Law enforcement, military, emergency service communities would not allow something like this to go down. It could not go down without someone finding out and blowing the whistle. I am a Firefighter. My neighbor is a Police Officer. My sisters husband is a Navy Pilot and flys off carriers. TWO of my cousins are US Marshalls. My Father and Uncle-Retired Firefighters. Most law enforcement / emergency service types have been in the military and many are still in the reserves. Don't think this plot would have slipped out do ya? Get it? Too many inter related people would have to have been involved for any of this to be carried out. I guess that never occurred to the dopes who made this. I suppose they have a perfectly reasonable explanation how the military sold out their own people and convinced them to murder their own people. I guess no one in the plot would have a brother or father who was FDNY, NYPD or PAPD OR worked in the towers huh? I know that the son of a Master Sgt. was on the flight that hit the Pentagon. I guess they can keep secrets of this magnitude even from the people who work inside their own building. F*CK anyone who believes this B.S.

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:22, Blogger Captain Den said...

There are so many screwed up things in this video it defies reality: Bodies- any of you ever see a burned body? I have. Plenty of times. Car wrecks. House fires. Want facts? I'll give you some. A body found in a well involved house fire is unrecognisable as such until thoroughly examined. I've seen guys standing on one and not know it. AVERAGE house fire. 1500-2000 degrees. I've seen what a car wreck in excess of 80mph can do to the human body. Don't believe me? Check out some of the web sites that specialise in that gory crap. (Rotten.com) Ask some of the FDNY how much of their brothers remains they found. Imagine a fully loaded, 100 ton+ jetliner hitting a building at 500+ mph. Concrete and steel Vs. aluminium and plastic. The concrete and steel wins every time. The human body vaporizes. Mercifully. In Shanksville there were no bodies, means no bodies INTACT. How many did they find when the Valu-Jet hit the swamp in Florida? I've been trained in building construction. Not construction as ordinary people understand it, but as firefighters understand it. Thats right firefighters study building construction pretty extensively because our lives depend on it. A building on fire is a building under demolition. I watched the events of 911 on TV, while on the phone with my father and said to him that the building would come down. He agreed and half an hour later it did. What the average person doesn't understand is professional perspective. Watching the fires on TV gave me a different perspective than the firefighters in the lobby. I had real time, close up video of the structure that wasn't available in the lobby. Different perspective. If the Chiefs who were in the lobby were watching what I was they would have come to the same conclusions. The force required to collapse a concrete structure the size of the Pentagon is massive. Military missiles aren't designed to do that. That is a job for bombs dropped from planes. Remember Shock and Awe? Missiles leave VAPOR TRAILS! Ever watch the MLRS? How about the Space Shuttle? How many of you actually ever saw a real life missle? I bet the video makers haven't. Somehow some of our soldiers would have to been ordered to fire a missile into one of our own cities. Any one really, really believe that? Their OWN headquaters. Thats like asking a fireman to burn down his own house, or a cop to shoot his own family. Assinine on face value.
The demolition charges that would have to have been set would all need to be wired together aside from being MASSIVE. So Massive amounts of blasting material all wired together, enough to bring down a 110 story building thats going to be hit by a jetliner, would be laying around weeks in advance without no one knowing about it? Really? I go into high rise office buildings every day. The people who work in there would notice if someone moves their coffee mug or favorite picture. Its rubbish. Oh I get it... it was a REMOTE CONTROLLED bomb. Triggered by what? The WTC was probably the worlds most electronic signal intense building. As soon as a charge was set it would have blown the guy who set it sky high. Our bomb threat protocol states no radios will be used within 1000 feet. We all laugh because we know that there are so many signals in the air today that that protocol is obsolete. Remember the first WTC bombing? That nit wit used a VAN packed with explosives and all he managed to do was punch a hole in the parking garage. Ask loose change to do the math on what it would take to blow apart one of the 14ft steel columns, remember like the one on the flatbed truck that they brought out on the last day? Thousands of pounds. More crap.
Many of the eyewitnesses, including some of the firemen initially said they heard bombs going off. I wonder how many of them actually have the expertise to state that? I was a tank crewman in the army and know what cannon fire sounds like. It sounds very different depending wher you are at the time of the shot. What does an elevator sound like when it crashes into the lobby from twenty floors up? Probably a bomb.
One point in particular really galls me. The makers of this video talk about the plane that hit the Empire State building in (1943?) This comparison conclusively proves their ignorance. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about construction knows that there are different eras of construction especially in NYC. The Empire State Bldg. was built at a time when reinforced concrete was the norm. The building weighed in the area of 25lbs per sq. ft. The modern era saw lightweight building construction replace the old heavyweight methods. Any documentary will show the difference in way they were built. The WTC weighed in at around 8-10 lbs. per sq. ft. A significant difference. The Empire State building was hit by a B-25 Mitchell bomber that weighed about 10 tons. and was probably flying at around 330 mph. The WTC was hit by a 100 ton jetliner with thousands of gallons of jet fuel at around 550 mph. Does loose change want to do that math? (My numbers are from memory but are probably right on. Feel free to look them up) There is a video(probably on Discovery?) with one of the fire chiefs who made the Empire State job back in 43. He said they went up and put the fire out with 3 alarms. He said (Pre-9-11) that if a plane hit those buildings today the building would end up in N.J. He was right on. NYC building codes are extremely lax and Port Authority has been criticised about them before 911. Nothing new. The building was "Slab Construction" Next time you see a high rise being built stop and look at it. It is a steel frame, with thin metal decking as the floors. They pour 4" of wet concrete into the decking and wrap the whole thing in a glass curtain wall. They use metal studs instead of wood, and drywall instead of plaster even in the stairtowers. Its for fire resistance, not blast resistance. The impact of those planes caused so much blast damaged that the steel trusses failed and the floors simply pancaked down one on top of the other as the heat warped them. To a firefighter with any experience this is predictable. Each floor is designed to carry its own weight and no more. Thats how lightweight construction is these days. Cheap & flimsy. A roof is designed to keep out rain, no more, no less. Don't believe me go to any Home Depot and look up. Lightweight, steel bar, truss construction with concrete slab walls. Essentially not much different than the WTC. When one floor gave, the one below could not support it and the chain reaction started. The survivors said they heard it coming like Boom, Boom, Boom, One floor pancaking on top of the next. Those puffs of smoke? Air being squeezed out from in between the floors. Take some shaving cream and put it in your hand. Take the other and smash it down on top. What happens to the cream? Duh. Its just too insipid to be believed. Please do your homework. The people who made this video are ignorant and malicious. Check out any firefighting manual by IFSTA and youll be able to understand these dopes are selling you a bill of goods.

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:44, Blogger Captain Den said...

Due to the open space floor design of the WTC, those hundreds of pounds of explosives would have to have been planted next to the exterior curtain wall since the revolutionary design of the WTC used the exterior steel curtain wall as a load bearing wall. Since that is the most desirable space on the floor, the offices were located around the perimeter where you had a view, those bombs would have been planted in someones office. Hundreds of pounds in each going unnoticed while execuatives prattle away on their cell phones. Huh?
Interesting how BOTH buildings collapse started where the planes hit, NOT on the lower floors where all of those imaginary bombs were planted? Rumsfeld... Doh!

 
At 25 September, 2006 02:55, Blogger Chronos said...

I think that regardless of weather or not this movie has it's facts straight or not, regardless of weather or not our government could pull this off (I don't think it was government but big money that was involved pulling strings, those people ARE smart.) doesn't
matter.

Why?
Because of the fact that what this movie is here to show you along with many other massive media movments like V for Vendetta and people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wanted to make clear...

Every government should be replaced every 25 years in a "peaceful revolution" and all who are in it should be replaced completely.

This hasn't happend for at least 100 years.

That's a lot of time to build corruption.

Revolution will happen no matter how much people resist it. In fact, it is those who FEAR revolution and change that will suffer the most in the coming years.

Regardless of weather or not Loose Change is total fiction or not, it reflects a greater need, and that is of the greater human spirit that REFUSES to submitt to anything or anybody.

The people should not fear their government, the government is supposed to fear it's people.

Wake up! See clearly that all struggling is from that of fear.

Do not fall for the media's tactics and possibly dis-information sites like this to stroke your skeptical mind and close you off to new visions of the future.

We will all die soon, or we will survive and life will continue this rate of the increase in change.

To see anything other than Unity at the heart of life is to suffer. All is one.

Chronos

 
At 09 October, 2006 05:59, Blogger j. metevier said...

i'm not sure who's responsible, or how it was all done...

however, i can't believe the wtc buildings, 1, 2 and 7 came down as they claim.

the whole premise for the collapse of 1 and 2 is that the floor trusses gave way resulting in a global collapse. My question. how would the floor trusses collapse with all the interior office walls under them. almost every floor was filled with dozens of offices consisting of metal stud walls. there is no way the upper portion above collapse point could achieve freefall speed through the bottom of the towers.

 
At 19 October, 2006 12:16, Blogger theark said...

Just 'cuz Bush appears to be an idiot, does not mean that he could not be responsible for something this big. Certainly no-one is claiming that Cheney is stupid, as he clearly hold the strings. It was Cheney, not Bush who was in charge of all the war-games going on the morning of 9/11 that was used as cover for the attacks. "Is this part of the drill?" the Air Traffic Controllers kept asking... And c'mon folks, if the Bush cabal did pull this off, GWB wasn't at the helm. It was the Skull & Bones faction of the CIA that conducted this operation - rather, COVERT operation. This is what they do! Bush's IQ doesn't need to be above 50 for his handlers to do this.

 
At 09 December, 2006 01:56, Blogger Jerod C. Batte said...

Okay, so "The Yeti" up there said...

"How about instead of major studios producing films about 9-11, as nothing but a propaganda/"patriotic"/money-maker, we see more films like 'Loose Change' that wasn't made to make money. It's made to spread the word; and that word is truth."

They didn't make the film to make money? Then why are they selling T-shirts? Why have they put out three editions of the same film?

In all honesty, I agree: the film wasn't made for money. It was made for a political agenda. Can't we can the politics already? Can we set left- and right-leaning political agendas aside for a freaking national tragedy, or are we all truly that infantile? If we're like the makers of "Loose Change", we probably are that petty.

 
At 09 December, 2006 01:56, Blogger Jerod C. Batte said...

Okay, so "The Yeti" up there said...

"How about instead of major studios producing films about 9-11, as nothing but a propaganda/"patriotic"/money-maker, we see more films like 'Loose Change' that wasn't made to make money. It's made to spread the word; and that word is truth."

They didn't make the film to make money? Then why are they selling T-shirts? Why have they put out three editions of the same film?

In all honesty, I agree: the film wasn't made for money. It was made for a political agenda. Can't we can the politics already? Can we set left- and right-leaning political agendas aside for a freaking national tragedy, or are we all truly that infantile? If we're like the makers of "Loose Change", we probably are that petty.

 
At 26 January, 2007 11:57, Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

Check this out for FREE...

This opportunity says:

"Your Ad" Will Be Instantly Displayed on Thousands of Websites and Read By Over 10 Million People Per Week For FREE, and It Only Takes 60 Seconds To Get Started!

To find out more visit: low cost multi level marketing site. It successfully exposes FREE information covering Traffic and low cost multi level marketing related stuff.

 
At 15 April, 2007 07:05, Blogger hardfire said...

Dylan Avery appears on public-access TV, with his sidekick Jason Bermas. See and hear Mark Roberts (Gravy) and Ron Wieck debunk every one of the boys' arguments. Go to http://www.CustomFlix.com/224731

 
At 21 April, 2007 18:05, Blogger cardfan said...

Am I the only one that finds it odd that the president would create an overly elaborate plan of implicating the saudis so he could then desperately try to figure out a way of linking them to the Iraqis to justify a war when he could have just planted some bombs in the WTC and then created evidence to blame the Iraqis instead?

 
At 27 May, 2007 18:26, Blogger Darthmeister said...

The America-never-landed-a-man-on-the-Moon conspiracy theory is far more compelling than the Screw Loose Change laugher. After Popular Mechanics debunked the juvenile conspiracy theories by these so-called "Truthers" with actual structural engineering science and physics nearly two years ago, it's amazing how ignorant most Americans are regarding the differences between facts and fiction. Occam's razor always applies in situations like this. Personally I'm getting tired of the tinfoil hat crowd bloviating in their ignorance about government conspiracies and black helicopters.

Oh, btw, America did land a man on the Moon not once but many times. If we hadn't the Soviets would have been the first to rat us out for our national deception since they followed the entire Apollo 11 flight and the Eagle landing with radar.

 
At 27 June, 2007 00:49, Blogger ka051505 said...

i jus want to say i think that loose change jus shows that every one just needs to ask more questions, like loose change did say if the government really wanted to show that they had nothing to hide, all they have to do is release those video tapes they confiscated on 911 i remember hearing about that on tv and i still have 1 question if the plane that hit the pentagon incenterated how come there was no marks or anything from the wings i dont think they could of hit, blew up and incenterated, and not even left a mark and i still want to know how they both fell in 10 seconds and how they fell when they were designed to withstand a plane crash when even older buildings that werent designed that way burned for way longer and still didnt fall i think if the government really has nothing to hide all they have to do is answer a couple questions

 
At 20 July, 2007 15:12, Blogger download said...

I love all the popele that say "not i'm not saying all the information in LC is true, but...."

When you make extrodinary claims, you need extrodinary proof. That's just the rule.
A quick example?
Nevada. Someone says "there's aliens flying around"
*I* say "there's a secret airfoce base there that tests experimetal planes."
My proof? Years and years of planes like the stealth which was revealed in the late 70's, yet designed in the 60's. Planes like the raptor which was designed in the 80's yet revealed in the 90's.
etc etc etc.
Unless they hold up an alien, then their extrodinary claim is rendered moot in the face of easily explainable evidence.

LC is no different.
They make bold, BOLD claims... and yet, what amazes me, is that some people admit, freely admit, that "yes, not all of their informatio is true."
And yet they still blindly follow loose change (and other movies like it), like it's the bible.

They redicule people like me who "believe the lie", when they are in fact "blindly following another".

Loose Change trumpets *ONE* thing:
"Don't believe their lie!!!!!.... Believe ours."

I'm sorry, but if you're going to make extrodinary claims, and then you purposefully mislead on even a *SINGLE* point... or lie even a SINGLE time... well then, you've pretty much destroyed your credibility entirely on everythign else.

Here's what I try and do, and maybe this will help you too. I look at 100% of the evidence of an event happening. And if that evidence doesn't point to a absolute, UNDENIABLE conclusion i say "I don't know". I don't start making up wild conspiracy theories about it.

What hit the pentegon? I don't know. there's enough compelling evidence that says a plane both did, AND did not hit that building.
So I say "I don't know" and I keep looking for proof either way. I don't immediately start sprouting theories about missiles.
Because there's 100% no evidence of that.

The working story is "a plane hit it". so before you go jumping to all the conclusions of *what else hit it*, you need to first 100% prove the plane did, or did not.

LC simple fails to prove data.
Sure, they provide a WHOLE lot of speculative theories. true.
And yes, the visible data doesn't always support the official account. But taht doesn't mean you can start running off on tangets irresponsible as the creators of LC have done.

 
At 05 August, 2007 20:55, Blogger C said...

Loose Change is better left to collapse under it's own lies and obvious motives.

Primary of which is that the money raised from the sale of their silly DVDs, T-shirts, and whatever else is not going to fund any new investigation...it is going to their pockets. They'll need it of course in lieu of any real prospects.

But back to the point, pity them but don't waste your time trying to "prove" them wrong. They know they are...you know they are...and the world knows they are.

Needn't look any further than the "no wreckage found at the pentagon" statement. A bunch of wreckage was found there.

Dylan Avery is a liar. Plain and simple.

 
At 05 August, 2007 21:01, Blogger C said...

We have pics of plane wreckage at the pentagon.

Strangely enough, we have zero pics of missile wreckage and zero explanation of what took down the light poles, hit the generators, or what happened to the plane that mysteriously disappeared that day (AA77).

It just goes to show that if you repeat the lie about a missiles hitting the Pentagon long enough people will continue to believe them.

We also have:

zero mea culpas about someone firing missiles at native soil

zero tell-all books/articles/DVDs about being in on the attacks

zero corroboration of the hi-jackers who are allegedly still alive and living among us

zero admission of just how bizarre the "loose change FINAL CUT" is...could you imagine if the Government yealled "do over" and came out with "9/11 COMMISSION...FINAL CUT". The truth doesn't get "final cuts"

Loose change=loose fact checking and total bunk. Don't buy it.

 
At 11 August, 2007 06:13, Blogger dcorner said...

Help me understand here. The purpose of the quote was to substantiate the premise something was amiss with the plane crash in PA. The statements of the coroner you are referencing, making factual comments on what he observed (no bodies, etc) would be collaborative evidence regardless of his interpretation of the facts as he presents them. There is a distinction between factual statements (no bodies) and personal opinion (here lie 40 heroes). I fail to understand how using the factual statements and leaving out his personal interpretation of these facts qualifies as misleading. That is of course unless you are desperately trying to invalidate some very valid questions which you seem to be completely avoiding to explore (point of all the smoke and mirrors?).

I quotte you "I was bothered right from the beginning when the filmmakers seemed to be saying that the entire government was gunning for the WTC"

This seems to be the underlying premise of every "counter" argument made so far. Asking some questions where the (partial)answers may lead to some disturbing possibilities and other questions is the opposite of what you are doing. I am uncomfortable with the possible truth so dont confuse me with the facts. It doesnt make you wrong, it just says you are avoiding the potential discomfort of having to come to grips with a pretty grim picture and having to change your world view.

I was quitte interested in finding some factual and solid counter arguments but seem to have stumbled into an intelectual wasteland. Keep sucking those straws.

P.S. please dont accuse me of selectively quoting you, people can read your blog directly on these pages.

 
At 11 August, 2007 09:30, Blogger Eric said...

Wow, dcorner, you should take off that plastic helmet and unhook the leash your grandmother's holding, and think for a second. The 'here lies 40 heroes' quote shows quite plainly that the person quoted believed people actually died. The fact that bodies weren't observed doesn't imply that people did not die. Why don't we get you going at 500mp and slam you up against a concrete wall and see how much is left of you, huh, pal? Then we could videotape it and show it to all the other douchebags that will say anything to defend their witless paranoid fantasies.

 
At 11 August, 2007 20:38, Blogger dcorner said...

Dear Eric,
Thank you for your commentary. Being upset and thinking clearly are most often mutually exclusive, off which your posting seems to be a nice illustration.

I quotte:
"here lies (lie) 40 heroes" quote shows quite plainly that the person quoted believed people actually died"

Yes Eric, you are right, but lets get a distinction right. Fact is there are no bodies, believe is "people died. Big difference.

quotte:
"The fact that bodies weren't observed doesn't imply that people did not die"

Again you are right that the first part of the statement does not necesarily imply the latter. On the other hand from neither of the above statements it does not immediately follow that a jet slamming into the ground would leave no human remains. The same question of course comes up with the explosion at the pentagon. Fact is there were no remains found of any of the passengers.

Question is, what happened to them. Nothing in your post even has the pretense of being interested in trying to answer that question. You even seem to suggest that merely asking that question is oh so stupid. After all, if I am going at 500 mph blah blah. (do I need to explain why metaphors dont count?)

There have been plenty of plane crashes in the past and yet with all off them where excavation was possible there were human remains recovered. Question, why not in the incidents in question on 9/11? What particular factor was UNIQUE enough to create a precedent in all off aviation history? Now I dont know the answers to these questions and neither do you Eric. Regardless of how imaginative your metaphor that still does not answer the fundamental question of why there were NO human remains at all.

I would be interested in hearing from somebody who can help explain this to me (and my friend Eric) without feeling the need to retort to imaginative metaphors and conjecture.

 
At 15 August, 2007 09:55, Blogger Ed Darrell said...

Several years ago a United jet (727 if I recall correctly -- may have been a 737) nosedived into the ground in Colorado Springs as it was approaching the runway. See if you can find that story. There were a lot of eyewitnesses. As with the 9-11 crash in Pennsylvania, there were not a lot of big pieces.

Heck, check out the reconstruction of the TWA flight that blew up coming out of New York. Tiny pieces.

Have you ever seen the remains of an automobile that crashed at 80 mph? These jets were likely flying faster than 400 mph. It's a wonder there was anything at all left.

 
At 15 August, 2007 10:02, Blogger Ed Darrell said...

United Flight 585, a 737, in 1991. See if you can find body parts somewhere. My recollection (and I worked in the airline industry at the time) was that bodies were difficult to find.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/737/part02/

 
At 26 August, 2007 08:52, Blogger C said...

anyone that believes loose change is interested in anything other than self glorification is an idiot

 
At 25 September, 2007 22:33, Blogger grigley said...

I just had the opporunity of watching loose change 2, not having seen the one before this.I'm sure this film is not 100% accurate, but it does raise alot of questions that seem to be getting no answers.One that comes to mind is the video release of the pentagon building that shows no evidence of a plane in the footage.It was edited , there's no doubt.Why I don't know , but it raises questions.This is why you have theories and doubt.If there is nothing to hide show the videos,play the cabin tapes and end this.

 
At 24 October, 2007 19:43, Blogger ShadowMan said...

OK Folks. I found this site searching "Loose Change". Have the first DVD, have not ordered the second edition YET. I think we are all missing the bigger picture as we discuss the distortions, views, opinions and aspects of what really went on September 11. Who was behind these events: The New World Order as operated on a global scale. How quickly you disbelievers forget that the media is the best as weaving stories and making facts seem as something totally different.

I would like to ask: is the patriot act fake? Are there cameras on many street corners with more to come? Does your town or one close have check points [sobriety checks]? Does the implantable chip exist? Is your money electronic as we move to a cashless world? How has air travel within the US changed? Do our politicians make rules without our say, input or authorization? Did Aldolf Hitler burn the Reichstag to begin Marshall Law and take over the country?

WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH. IF WE COULD GET TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR LOCAL POLITICIANS [SENATORS, CONGRESSMAN] FACE THE TRUTH AND KEEP PUSHING WE MIGHT, AND I MEAN MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE

GOD HELP US ALL............

 
At 26 October, 2007 19:05, Blogger Traveler59 said...

WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH. IF WE COULD GET TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR LOCAL POLITICIANS [SENATORS, CONGRESSMAN] FACE THE TRUTH AND KEEP PUSHING WE MIGHT, AND I MEAN MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE

Let me get this straight. You want the same government that already has investigated this, the same government you (and others) are accusing of causing this (LIHOP/MIHOP) to do ANOTHER investigation?!! Gives a clear definition of stupidity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You don't want the 'truth' because it has already been presented and you can't accept it, it doesn't fit your version of what happened. Something on this scope would require coordination and secrecy across so many levels of government it boggles the imagination, and that just isn't going to happen.

 
At 08 November, 2007 23:58, Blogger Nigel said...

I didn't read all of the 50+ comments already here so I hope what I have to say hasn't already been said, and can be considered by the administrators of this webpage.

Here goes,

I think, as a reader, that Screw Loose Change does have a few strong arguments, such as questioning some of Loose Change's assertions about the government wanting to destroy Twin Towers. Particularly the WTC in Crosshairs bit.

However, the information of Screw Loose Change isn't really very well presented or very persuasive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your arguments, I'm sure all of them are correct. I just think, that if I saw tis website and I saw the Movie Loose Change, I'd be much more persuaded by a movie.

It's like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. He has some strong points, but others aren't quite so convincing, yet he gets away with it because it's entertaining, it's interesting, it's presented well.


One of the things that really takes away quite a lot of credibility from you is that you people are STRONGLY against Loose Change from the very beginning. The Website title shows it. "Screw" ain't particularly polite.

If you guys can present this information perhaps in a more persuasive manner, it would be a lot more convincing.

 
At 17 November, 2007 14:14, Blogger calvin said...

i have made a point of not getting drawn into "quotes" and other second hand information from this film or any other source. i have made the point to instead take from this movie points which can be proven simply by seeing. Anyone with a grade 10 education should be asking how under the popular theory (of fire), that these buildings "unassisted by explosives" could defy the LAWS of physics. i would love to have someone show me any circumstance where these buildings could fall down at near the rate of free fall without assistance below the impact points to accelerate the fall. forget any other points or theories stemming from loose change as far as i am concerned this is simple physics and the proverbial "smoking gun". please i would like nothing more than to have an answer to this because it kills me to think that a country could do this to its own people, or any person for that matter.

 
At 06 March, 2008 23:50, Blogger Tyler said...

In response to traveller59's comment about another government investigation on 9/11, and their ability to carry out a false flag attack, I would say that you are not thinking realistically about the issue. Of course asking having the government investigate the events would be a bad idea, but not because they have given us the truth. Why would you expect the Neo-cons that orchestrated it to implicate themselves? It would go against human nature. I agree that the government shouldn't be the ones to investigate this, but your claim that we should just accept the "truth" is irrelevant, as this whole discussion is about how the government has lied to us. How can you call the official version of 9/11 the "truth"? If you think the 9/11 Commision Report is truth, go to this URL to see the more than 100 different lies, contradictions, and ommissions contained in the report!http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.phpa Commen

You are failing to watch this video with an open mind as I did, and see from VISUAL, IRREFUTABLE images, that it is YOUR version rather, the "Official One" that doesn't correspond to the actual events.
Finally, your belief that the government doesn't have the resources or competence to carry out such an attack, while with some merits, is not entirely true. You are believing that the ENTIRE government was involved in this as opposed to the top-level inner-circle of the neo-cons, like Dick Cheney, Rummy, and Condoleeza Rice.

I have also noticed that some of you have said that the government wouldn't do this. You only have to watch the video for FIVE MINUTES to find definitive evidence of several false flag scenarios for the invasion of Cuba. Those of you who deny that our government would do this only need look at history Hitler killed his own soldiers to get into Poland. Churchill sent the Lusitania into waters the U-Boat fleets specifically warned not to trespass in to involve the US in WWI. False flags have been carried out before numerous times. The reason why they work so well is becuase nobody (People who support this site) believes that their own government would do such a horrible thing. And yet history has proved them wrong time and again. Thankfully, this time around, it has been so obvious that it is our responsibility to take action and spread the truth through videos such as these.

 
At 07 March, 2008 00:15, Blogger Tyler said...

I find "morecorruptthanu"'s, uneducated and false comments personally offensive. My father has been a United Pilot for 10 years and I find your comments insulting to him and his profession. Your arguments are so baseless that anyone could sure as hell disprove them! How could you even suggest that the pilots were sick or drunk.!? A pilot is not allowed to drink alcohol while on reserve for a flight call or 24 hours before a flight, and, just like "normal" 9-5 job, they have such a thing as SICK LEAVE. In addition, the very thought of "sucking off an accomplice" or "rubbing out an easy one" is so ignorant and insulting (To me, my father, and every airline pilot in the business, especially in American and United) that I cannot believe you would have the nerve to post such slander and not expect anything to happen.

YOU, have proved, by your disrespect for those who died, whether or not the government was involved, that you "don't know shit". How can you say that not one, but two crews of well-trained pilots would crash into the same two buildings, on accident, within minutes of eachother? These comments should be removed as they disrespect an important brotherhood, over 50% of which have served our country flying in the military beforehand.

The argument that we can't think anything because we were not on the plane and thus DEAD!, are completely baseless. It is clear, from explosions in the lobby from the basement, pools of thermite (Used in demolitions because burns hotter than 1500-2000 degrees of jet crash, which wouldn't melt steel) that burned for weeks on the ground, the "pulling" of the third WTC building, the downward slants on broken girders to indicate the explosions of demolition charges, among countless other alleged "coincidences" are impossible to deny as suspicious.

 
At 20 April, 2008 00:03, Blogger Pete said...

OK, I usually don't get involved in discussions like this. Usually, I'm content to sit back and watch the show. But I feel compelled to comment on one thing Pat says about the Flight 93 coroner sitation. Pat claims that Loose Change conveniently took quotes that served their point, then offers the full quote. Pat's point, I assume, is to demonstrate that the coroner said more, perhaps something damaging to Loose Change's claims. But whadaya know - he doesn't. He claims there were no bodies, no blood. That it became a funeral service. If Pat were making a good point, he'd quote the coroner as saying something like 'There were 36 bodies, etc.' But he doesn't. So Pat, your 'debunking' here, as well as in many other places, is fucking wrong. Clear this shit up, or pack your bags.

 
At 11 May, 2008 13:51, Blogger DarkGravity said...

"If the jet fuel can burn so hot as to "vaporize" the engines, how does it manage to not "vaporize" the engines when the are operating normally in flight, under full throttle at takeoff, etc etc?"

Now let's use common sense. I don't know much about planes, but I'm gonna guess it's because it's a controlled environment, like a car engine.
A plane full of fuel is going to burn it over time and at regular intervals. As for take off, I'm sure there's a way to offset that amount of energy or else every plane would blow up before it left.
So x gallons of jet fuel burned in small portions over time is safer than taking the same amount and having it all burn at once, ie EXPLOSION. Coincidentally, that's what happened when the plane hit the ground.
But then again that's just my guess.

 
At 05 June, 2008 10:16, Blogger RGHII said...

re calvin:"Anyone with a grade 10 education should be asking how under the popular theory (of fire), that these buildings "unassisted by explosives" could defy the LAWS of physics. i would love to have someone show me any circumstance where these buildings could fall down at near the rate of free fall without assistance below the impact points to accelerate the fall."

Actually it may take more than a 10 th grade education to understand that no laws of physics needed to be denied. If the steel work on a floor melted so that the weight of the floors above could not be suspended then those upper floors would fall down to the floor below the fire and the impulse from that would cause the steel beams at that point to give way and so on and so on all the way to the ground. Actual several structural engineering investigations have shown that that would happen. In fact this same principal is used when large buildings are demolished. Now did Al Queda know the buildings would come down? They have structural engineers too and they did fly the planes not into the very top floors (which would not have have allowed such a large mass to fall to set off the chain reaction) but several floors down.

 
At 05 June, 2008 12:37, Blogger CmanX said...

"Actually it may take more than a 10 th grade education to understand that no laws of physics needed to be denied. If the steel work on a floor melted so that the weight of the floors above could not be suspended then those upper floors would fall down to the floor below the fire and the impulse from that would cause the steel beams at that point to give way and so on and so on all the way to the ground. Actual several structural engineering investigations have shown that that would happen. In fact this same principal is used when large buildings are demolished."


Interesting comment. Since you bring up the steel beems...The planes hit one side of the very large towers. I'm sure things got hot, but to fall straight down the beams would have to be weakened. But if the plane hit one side, only a section of beams would have been weakened. In which case that section would have dropped first causing an uneven floor drop. This could start a floor collapse but not a straight down drop. This should have created a corner/side collapse and the top section should have began to slide..yet it didn't.

Again "Actual several structural engineering investigations have shown that that would happen. In fact this same principal is used when large buildings are demolished."

If larger buildings were this easy to take down...demo specialists would just heat up the steel beams 3/4 the way up buildings and let the floor drop chain reaction take down the building. Interesting that no demo specialist will take this cheap effective solution instead they continue spending all that money on proper structural analysis and demo charge setup.

 
At 26 June, 2008 08:56, Blogger David Webb said...

I don't know what to think about all this. What's true.. what's false.. what's a blurred vision of either. It's a lot to take in at once. SO.. here is my top 10 question list. No specific order.

I have read this whole blog, now what I want to know is:

1.) Why was the trajectory of the plane (or whatever the fuck that was) already on the lawn of the Pentagon?

2.) Where are the MASS AMOUNTS of confiscated evidence?

3.) Why was that exact spot of the Pentagon remodeled to brace for an attack of the sort.

4.) How do you explain the stock market action the day before the explosion?

5.) Is it honestly possible that WTC 7 fell (completely similar to the other towers) just from being damaged by the other collapsing buildings?

6.) Why were those planes flying over the Pentagon directly after the attack?

7.) Why is the list of suspects from the attacks so inaccurate?

8.) Where is the government response to this video?

9.) Why would someone sign a 99-year lease when it appears that he won't be alive for, at the most, 10 more years?

10.) Last but not least. Where are the fucking blackboxes? Please answer this question if none other. How did the MOST IMPORTANT (next to the Pentagon surveillance tapes) components to discovering the truth disappear off the face of the fucking planet?

Now. I understand skepticism. The "blasts" coming out from the Trade Centers could have easily been from air pressure. The "voice morphers" from United 93 didn't sound incredibly accurate, and neither did the facts about the plane landing and unloading at the empty NASA center. Also, it's obvious that you can never trust eye witnesses when every third person tells a different story. Nor can you trust a novices opinion on what a bomb should sound like. As for the gold myth.. who knows?

I could go on for days.. but I'll stop now. PLEASE PEOPLE. Ease my mind. I haven't chosen sides yet, because I believe that is a HUGE decision to make considering what we are talking about here. I wanted to throw up after watching this movie. If you can logically answer at least 5 of these questions you will add a little sleep to my night.

Thank you. I hope for the peace to remain in this country, but there's a feeling deep inside of me craving radical change, revenge, and justice.

 
At 02 July, 2008 23:07, Blogger eyeswideopen said...

I concur with David Webb.

First of all I have no desire to win a debate. It's not about that. We have to be civil and ask questions.

1)What turned 200,000 tons of concrete into talcum powder? (See governor Pattaki stating this on camera that there was virtually no concrete at the site the day after..../youtube it)
You don't have to be an engineer to realize that this is not possible in a pancake type collapse.
MIT prof's have said that there is no mechanism for this in the official story.
2) How was the Pentagon hit at all?

THE most protected building on the planet. It's own RADAR that they brag never misses a single event in NA airspace, cameras and missile batteries galore and not one but 2 'no fly zones'. You might get through the first one but never the second... unless...
A known terrorist takeover of a commercial aircraft being flown for over 50 minutes towards the Pentagon and no interception or shootdown???
Come on.
Think critically.. don't let them tell you what to think.
Think for yourself.

 
At 10 September, 2008 16:01, Blogger dennis said...

I am not an American citizen but I can understand the American frustration at some of the comments by the official outlets and indeed the posts from firemen. Yes when a fire happens bodies do get burnt beyond recognition but there are bodies to examine. We here from the coroner "that there were no bodies and very little wreckage of any sort and it looked like someone had dug a hole and filled it with scrap". Now given that immediately after such a tragic accident, the first things that are said are usually almost the true version of events and not added to or watered down afterwards, one can assume that he was telling the truth. I have witnessed on numerous occasions TV reporting of aircraft crashes and in all cases there are huge amounts of wreckage, aircraft parts, luggage, seats. You name it and it is there but as with the Pentagon and the other crash, there is no apparent wreckage and that must be viewed with some scepticism. Aircraft of this size do not completely vapourise into thin air as has been suggested. We are told that the names of the passengers were available but how did the authorities identify them if they had been vapourised into dust. Yes two aircraft hit the twin towers and brought down other buildings but even there several near impossible events took place, like the passport from a would be terrorist. Surely had the aircraft vapourised as has been suggested, nothing and I repeat nothing would have survived, let alone a passport in near perfect condition.

 
At 18 October, 2008 15:34, Blogger saxmanj said...

Bush and his incompetent henchmen make perfect patsy's for the real leaders of the cabal to hide behind. What we have is a three tiered organization: (1) the bosses or money men at the top,(2) the front men like Bush to take the heat, including government and media personalities, and (3) the jackals who manage the dirty work (CIA / military types). The middle men don't have to be good actors, they really are that greedy, dumb and incompetent. Bush realizes he has been had but is too involved to admit anything - - looks like a deer in the headlights.

 
At 23 October, 2009 01:00, Blogger David said...

Do you remember Bush's words?

'You're either with us... or you're with the terrorists'

Are you familiar with Cheney and crews group 'New American Century' and their hope (or plan) for a new pearl harbor?

If you are familiar with that.. then you know this is just what they wanted... that fact alone is over half the way to committing the crime. The other half very possibly could have been luck!... serious folks.. if you read the text of New American Century.. they were looking for this - and I think they made it happen.. but what would be the real difference if they didn't? They were hoping for the murder of American citizens.. or caused it - same thing. Maybe you should get over the bickering about if it did or if it didn't = and understand that their VERY charter was seeking an excuse to plunge us into 'multiple simultaneous major theatre wars' in their words - and mention the interest in some 'catastrophic and catalyzing event'.. - this means that even if they didn't..they would if they could (though I do think they did.. a group like Blackwater - which we HAVE had contracts with in the past - could pull this off no problem) These are facts - not disputable. Blackwater has billions and specializes in overthrowing governments.. has it's own army - and does whatever dirty work their employer asks for. So maybe don't concern yourself so much with 'could it be'.. and realize that either way - it's still true. They WILL do such things to advance an agenda.. and the agenda was advanced.

TERROR ALERT LEVEL : SEVERE folks.

 
At 23 October, 2009 01:27, Blogger David said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 October, 2009 01:34, Blogger David said...

and I wanted to add.. in response to Captain Den's comments waaay up above...

Captain Den.. I do respect your opinion - as a fireman and as someone who has actual experience in this area, I really do, but it's still an argument from authority - and you are not a physicist/engineer/architect or in any of these fields.. and they have just as much room to claim a building should or shouldn't collapse the way these buildings did. Many are saying it's not possible..

But.. I'm willing to take your opinion that truly a building could collapse 'pancake' style as you claim.. I have to admit, I'm no expert in the field - and possibly physics ain't what I think it is.. It's not like I haven't been wrong before on things.. so I'm open to the possibility that even though it seems completely implausible that 3 buildings could collapse in the manner they did - especially building 7 - even though I think that.. you are free to show me different..

And all you would have to do to prove it to me... is show one similar structure, a many floored building.. say at least 20 floors, subjected to somewhat similar forces.. extreme fire, plane crash, or even some other forces.. earthquake.. earthquake/fire combo.. just one simple slightly similar example, collapsing in pancake fashion to it's foundation. That's it -

You have all of history.. all of your own personal experience.. and all of the internet at your disposal... and I'm ready to convert to the pancake theory instantaneously -- that is if it weren't for the fact that I've never seen it.. ever. And it defies my view of logical laws of physics (path of most resistance being the main problem.. especially since building one and two had a central core.. which the pancake floors have to crash through - at near freefall).. but that's alright.. I'm sure there's many things I've never witnessed.. this might just be one of them - so... show me the one example. if you can't ..well then, we had it happen 3 times that day.. and once with no plane hit, just small fires. Using simple logic.. I say - if it happens from fires, then someone has filmed one - because fires occur alll the time. People film them alll the time.. So show me - cause in my experience.. doesn't happen.. but it does happen in controlled demolition all the time..

And when I combine that fact.. with 'pull it' and insurance money.. and missing bodies and planes.. and missing video.. and strange stock market occurrences.. and war games.. and Bush involvement.. and Iraq agendas.. and miraculous bandanas.. and terrorists taking on a plane full of people with box cutters - even though they looked like terrorists - so I'm sure the people knew what they were in for..so I'd think they would attack the terrorists.. and combine that with president Bush and 'my pet goat' which he read for a half hour.. and a past history of working WITH Osama...

well - the official story suddenly doesn't hold up when compared to simpler story...the Bush agenda.

 
At 22 December, 2009 18:12, Blogger crazyloko said...

I’m a Wholesale Polo Shirts huge fan of Fiber Gourmet pasta’s; Cheap Ed Hardy clothingthey taste great and Air Max Chaussures are healthy not only for you but your entire family. Polo shirtThere’s really no difference in the taste between thisTn Requin pasta and your standard pasta, Chaussures SportI couldn’t tell the difference, Polo shirt
neither could any member of my family including my picky children. chaussure sportIt’s nice to know that even while dieting and watching my calorie intake there Chaussures Nikeis an alternative out there that allows me to eat the pasta I want, when I want without the guilt.

 
At 22 December, 2009 18:13, Blogger crazyloko said...

cell phonesThis phenomenom is typified by mobile phonethe rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesale “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that cheap cell phones wholesale from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.cosplay costumes
cheap cell phones
cheap cocktail dresses
Cheap Wedding Dresses
cheap jewelry

 
At 06 February, 2010 04:39, Blogger davidbaer said...

Think about this.
If you really did find a working formula that made you, say $1,000 a week online on average and it kept producing income no matter what, would you want to sell that idea to a bunch of noobs for $47 a pop and expect to retire on the proceeds? No way, man! It does not compute. It does not add up. And it does not make any sense to do that. I certainly don’t go shouting from the rooftops how I make my money online. Hell, I don’t want the competition taking a slice of my pie and neither would anyone who really does make good cash online.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

 
At 04 July, 2011 08:24, Blogger hulk said...

all you guys are fucking delusional the guy who said there government was too thick to pull it off lmao
so your saying a guy with a truck full of muslims who lived in a cave somewhere in afghanistan had the resources to pull it off dont make me laugh you fucking homo inside job end of, people need to open there eyes

and i know he was caught in a house in pakistan and shot dead which comes to another point he coudlnt even get protected in his own house and you expect us to believe he destroyed 2 skyscrapers assholes

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home