Monday, May 15, 2006

The Top Lies and Deceptions of Loose Change 1-10

Some of these are a bit redundant, since we have already covered many of the topics, but I wanted to produce a list of the top lies and deceptions of Loose Change. As you can tell from reading this blog and the Reader's Guide, there are literally hundreds of things wrong with the movie, but I wanted to compile a short (relatively speaking) list of the ones that really slap you in the face. I will probably post this up as a DOC or a PDF eventually. More to follow...


1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines,

Truth: Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place. Source

2. Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock.

Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock. Source

3. Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane.

Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time. Source

4. Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.

Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source

5. Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground,
Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.

Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Source

6. Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.

Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source

7. Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines.

Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source

8. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior.

Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. The engine in question is consistent with that of the Rolls-Royce RB211 used by the 757. Source and here

9. Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.

Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response. Source

10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?

Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source

305 Comments:

At 16 May, 2006 17:51, Blogger avonhungen said...

You make a number of assertions here that seem to be citable - would you mind adding links that support these statements?

 
At 16 May, 2006 18:00, Blogger og said...

The Skywarrior had a 36° degree swept wing and two Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojet engines. Although prototypes had used the intended Westinghouse J40, that powerplant proved disastrous, and was subsequently cancelled. - No mention of Rolls royce engines...ever.

 
At 17 May, 2006 03:29, Blogger dilbert_g said...

2. Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock.

This is the ONLY claim I'll tentatively support. Stock trades -- PUT OPTIONS, betting on losses were 600 times or more over normal (to my knowledge) in the day/days preceding. The PUT options were on American and United, but not other airlines. Merill Lynch was also PUTted.

It came up in the media, and the govt said "nothing there". The trades went thru a subsidiary of Deutschebank. The former executive Dir of CIA -- the same man who later said "we should just let Osama go free because capturing him might have repercussions" -- was a director of "special accounts" at ABB a subsidiary of Deutschebank (not at the time of 9-11, iow, he was another "ex" official).

Special accounts = super rich people. Deutschebank also worked was involved with laundering money for the infamous BCCI, Bank of Credit and Commerce International. BCCI should be called "The Al-Qaeda International Bank of Pakistan". BCCI helped launder drug money for terrorism, weapons, and drugs, it's part of the Iran-Contra deal. CIA used BCCI. BCCI bought the Bank of America. Top Democrats and Republicans narrowly missed hangings, but there were too many rich people involved, and apparently John Kerry, PI let everyone off the hook, especially Poppy Bush.

Now MAYBE there's NOTHING there, but to the best of my knowledge, they never looked, and the media dropped it.

 
At 18 May, 2006 16:40, Blogger sumy23 said...

Ummm. So if loose change is full of things that can't be supported and of course you are a better researcher. Were are the links to your sources. Come on you're not helping me out here. I need to know if I can go back to playing World of warcraft and my happy little life from the before time, the long long ago, when I didn't worry about the world. You know, a good consumer.

 
At 18 May, 2006 20:48, Blogger Cesar said...

This guy is not linking because he does NOT have proof..

 
At 19 May, 2006 11:54, Blogger Freedom-and-Democracy said...

We, as members of the world's foremost democracy, should not look at Loose Change as a set of facts or truths. Rather, the owrk done by the folks at Loose Changed was designed to raise questions that have not been addresses and deserve strict scrutiny by our government and the media. Suggesting that there are lies in the video, without citing highly relaible 3rd party sources and credible evidence, only supports the notion that the picture is unclear and deserves more attention. This blog, Screw Loose Change, is part of the problem, not the solution.

 
At 19 May, 2006 12:30, Blogger Martialscholar said...

I think that there are still questions that need answers.

For anyone who has need a building imploded, it is obvious what happened to the twin towers! If the support structure was wobbling like wikipedia who linked me to you claimed. It would be wobbling now wouldnt it?

As for your facts, I see we need further proof by linking accurate sources, and to be honest loose change could have used better sources than wikipedia for the "Gold" point which I think is completely ignorant.

This has turned me to being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, trust no politician and no government! They are all selfish like you and I! Politicians will be politicians.

 
At 19 May, 2006 12:59, Blogger duddy kravitz said...

i think that americans are afraid of the truth. loose change has opened the eyes of everyone and of course people like you, who are bush loving morons, will live in the constent denial of what really happend.

 
At 19 May, 2006 17:17, Blogger bartelomeus00 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 19 May, 2006 17:18, Blogger bartelomeus00 said...

Hmm, more documantaries coming online. Care to make another screw -something blog? You guys are going to be busy!

What's the truth?

 
At 21 May, 2006 08:13, Blogger andytheashton said...

You are so blind.
Using the official report as a source of fact is absolutely idiotic, as the official report is redundant and corrupt.
See ya!

 
At 21 May, 2006 08:14, Blogger andytheashton said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 May, 2006 10:55, Blogger benedictrove said...

I love this- "the 911 conmission" found nothing unusual about the put stock airline options before 911. OMG!! The 911 Commission? It was like the criminals investigating themselves as happens so often in this administration. The fact is those put options happened and they are EXTREMELY unusual. Here is an article from former cop Michael Ruppert who is more knowlegeable than the idiots who wrote this site.
http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

 
At 22 May, 2006 11:03, Blogger benedictrove said...

What is with the "Spokesman for Rolls Royce said none of the parts were from their engines" comment? That is called a STRAW MAN. That is when you make up a false claim by your opponent then knock it down, I have NEVER read anyone say that,if they did they are not part of the 911 skeptics mainstream beliefs. What is sad is that unknowledgeable people will see this site and think that your points are valid

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:51, Blogger James B. said...

No, that is a completely accurate representation of the movie. Click on the link, I discuss it at length, quoting verbatim from the movie and the news article they cite.

 
At 24 May, 2006 10:41, Blogger Unemplawyer said...

I am willing to concede that LC is full of poorly cited material. I am even willing to concede that the movie is 80% wrong. What I cannot concede, and have not been shown respectable evidence to the contrary, is that the three towers were brought down by the planes. They were undboubtedly hit by planes, but those buildings WERE NOT!! brought down by jet fuel. Can someone convince me otherwise? If not, LC is a valuable addition to the argument about the causes of 911.

Who did it? Why? WHO CARES? I am simply asserting that those planes did not take down those buildings. It is a physical imposibility.

I am Canadian. I recently had a visitor from the US. He refused to even watch the film. This is called "willful blindness".

If you want to remain ignorant to some facts, that is fine. But don't tell me the official story makes sense because Burlingame has a history with American Airlines. That is throwing the intellectual baby out with the jingoist bathwater.

 
At 24 May, 2006 10:51, Blogger Unemplawyer said...

I am willing to concede that LC is full of poorly cited material. I am even willing to concede that the movie is 80% wrong. What I cannot concede, and have not been shown respectable evidence to the contrary, is that the three towers were brought down by the planes. They were undboubtedly hit by planes, but those buildings WERE NOT!! brought down by jet fuel. Can someone convince me otherwise? If not, LC is a valuable addition to the argument about the causes of 911.

Who did it? Why? WHO CARES? I am simply asserting that those planes did not take down those buildings. It is a physical imposibility.

I am Canadian. I recently had a visitor from the US. He refused to even watch the film. This is called "willful blindness".

If you want to remain ignorant to some facts, that is fine. But don't tell me the official story makes sense because Burlingame has a history with American Airlines. That is throwing the intellectual baby out with the jingoist bathwater.

 
At 24 May, 2006 11:16, Blogger Pat said...

Unemplawyer, if you believe that 80% of Loose Change is wrong, then how does it help your cause? Is it that your cause is so strong that it can handle an 80% falsehood rate?

 
At 24 May, 2006 16:09, Blogger James B. said...

Unemplawyer, if you allowed me to lie 80% of the time, I could put together a convincing argument that Canada was a physical impossibility...

 
At 25 May, 2006 09:01, Blogger nick said...

my name is nick morano. i worked at 90 west street, i had to walk away from the WTC to actually see the hole i was so close. the second plane flew right over my head. there was no missile, it was a commercial airliner, i have 20/10 vision. after running to battery park, i looked back and said to myself, "those buildings are coming down". i hitched a ride from the tunnel where the FDR starts, there was about 20 of us. I got in a sentra driven by a hacidic guy and in the back was myself and 2 young kids from kansas who just started working at Weatherly Securities in the tower. I said to them, "they're coming down, both of them". one of them said "nah, theyre firewalled (or whatever)". i was like "no way man, those holes are gigantic, the fire is raging theres no way they can sustain that. theyre only getting worse". you can't begin to imagine how big those holes were unless you saw them up close with your own eyes. it's nothing like what i've seen on TV. the guy dropped us off by the UN and i walked to my apt. on 38th, and my roommate, who worked at the AMEX, looked at me and said can you believe this sh*t? I said those things are coming down. He said "oh 100%". The south tower fell 5 minutes later.
Now how did I know that Bush planted explosives in the WTC? Come on, this is the most idiotic theory Ive ever heard in my entire life. people who believe this nonsense for one minute should get serious help.
Why fly planes into a building THEN detonate explosives? Why not just detonate both buildings at the same time? It would have killed 50x more people.
These people at loose change claim that since steel melts at 3000 degrees and jet fuel only heats to 1700 degrees, it would be impossible. some idiotic statement not taking into account pressure, atmosphere, time, wind, and 100 other factors. loose change also fails to mention when STEEL BECOMES MALLABLE, ie. bendable. depending on how much carbon, iron the allow has it can melt at as low as 1000 degrees and become malleable at just 400 degrees. Now, does this mean that steel will buckle at 400 degrees if i put a elephant on it? No, but if you put 60 city-block size floors on it, the equivalent of 200 million elephants, yeah it's going to buckle, especially after burning at 1500 degrees for 40 minutes.
this video by loose change is about 1 thing. making money. just go to the website, they have more advertisers than a Nascar driver. they SELL 9-11 CT clothing. the fact that there are people out there stupid enough to give this serious thought is disturbing.

 
At 25 May, 2006 12:13, Blogger Mat Ripley said...

For me until there is an explanation of the 16 ft hole surrounded by windows (rather than the entire side of the Pentagon as a plain would have done) then there is a conspiracy.

And I don’t do conspiracies;)

Mat Ripley
www.salted.net

 
At 25 May, 2006 20:33, Blogger James B. said...

Mat, it wasn't a 16 foot hole, it was 90 feet. Go to the link I posted up above, I even have pictures.

 
At 26 May, 2006 00:49, Blogger James B. said...

And each side of the Pentagon is 921 feet, so with a 124 foot wingspan it would not have taken up the entire side.

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:07, Blogger Unemplawyer said...

This blogging stuff rules!! I commend the people of Screw Loose Change for creating such a forum.

Pat: In a word "Yes". If you read my post you will note that I am only making some limited assertions. That is how strong I believe my case is on those limited assertions. I get your point as to how the percentage of correctness is low. However, wouldn't your entire world fall to pieces if that movie is even 20% correct. Are you willing to concede that?

James B.: You are a dumbass. However. If you are truly not a dumbass. I would love to hear even the most insane argument for the "physical imposibility" of Canada. I would expect that the floor beneath me would simultaneously disappear.

nick morano: Gutsy to put your name on here. Careful, there are vultures everywhere. I am touched by your story. It must have been horrible. Please understand that my heart ached for the inocent people in that mess. I even met a widow of one of the planes once. Strong lady.

I had the same reaction to the television version of it. Despite that, I still cannot support the official story on this stuff. The coincidal failure of the engineering, fire fighter evacuation expertise, historical trends, physics, chemistry, and logic, all at the same time, for the first time ever, is a bit too much for me to handle.

If I am a total whack job, someone please prove it. I am in favour of the truth. In the complete non-partisan nature that only an outside observer can posess.

The research is out there. Have a look. Get back to me.

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:10, Blogger Revolution_is_Truth said...

Are you seriously this stupid? These arguments are a joke; did you go read the Popular Mechanics article to learn how to “debunk”? Seriously your sources for your “truth” are jokes at the best. It’s a nice idea to try and scrutinize these claims, but if you’re going to do it this poorly you should just keep it to yourself. If you really don’t believe that 9-11 was an inside job you’re a dumb ass so I’m probably just wasting my time here. We are the only world super power; we have been spending more money on defense than everyone in the whole world combined for more years than I’ve probably been alive. These planes were in the air way too long, those buildings didn’t burn for anywhere near long enough, and anywhere near hot enough temperatures and I don’t care how hard those concrete floors came down it wouldn’t turn to dust instantly. Why don’t you go read the FEMA report, the NIST report and read the oral histories of 9-11, then take a little time to educate your self in metallurgy just a little bit, and try to make a rational conclusion about what you’ve been lied to about? It’s not that fucking hard and it doesn’t take a genius, just a little effort. I know the answer isn’t easy, but it’s reality deal with it.

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:36, Blogger Revolution_is_Truth said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:38, Blogger Revolution_is_Truth said...

Nick,

I’m going to assume that you’re just ignorant and not stupid. First let’s get our facts straight, steel melts at around 2750F (1510C). The planes hit the top of the buildings, saying that there were 60 floors on top of the damaged area is an example of your ignorance. It’s important to not forget how these buildings where designed, they were made to have a central core that was capable of supporting the entire weight of the building. These are massive 3’ by 2’ box columns 47 of them in the central core of the twin towers. These were 4” thick steel columns in the lower portion of the building and I believe they went down to 2” thick steel on the upper portion. Let us not forget that the FEMA and NIST reports say these fires would have been at a max 800-1000c in certain spots, and a lot cooler in many spots, look at the report they don’t lie about the fires, they know they couldn’t get away with that, but they do miss represent the reality of the central core columns. Regardless of whether they are making money, they are providing a service to the citizens of America; they have obviously worked hard on their film. Do they not deserve fruits for their labor? Do you go around working for free? If you actually do, I think it’s as rare as being someone that actually thought those buildings where going to come down. I’ve talked to a lot of people about 9-11, and the problems with the story as we know it and no matter how strongly the are against my point of view, they have never told me they believed that they would collapse. So do a little more homework, and don’t stop questioning Dylan, or anyone else that makes these movies, their view is not all right but it’s not all wrong either and we have to look past these little mistakes, because honestly what good does it do for us to scrutinize little old Dylan and co, what harm are they really doing to this country? But, our acting government is spending our money left and right, cutting our civil liberties, spying on us, leading us into massively expensive pre-emptive wars, giving their old companies no bid rebuilding contracts that are probably vastly over priced, explaining the massively expensive war

 
At 28 May, 2006 10:16, Blogger X-Res said...

Im a ex-residente of the U.S, thus a fan of the american way of life, but I have also lived in 3 other countries on 3 different continents. Whatever the truth is, nothing hides the fact that the american people are being played. Alot of the information there govermant gives them is misleading and sometimes even unexceptibly false. It´s all about second intentions... the U.S posseses an extremely shady goverment, that´s what many americans and the rest of the world think about the U.S these days.
There is no dought that the U.S is the most controlled democratic state in the world, and the majority of all americans are easily manipulated, because there govermant has all the tools and knowledge to do it.
Sometimes it seems that all those technics of phsycological propaganda that the U.S used on Afghan and Iraq, is also used on the american people.

And it seems to work just as well or even better.

 
At 28 May, 2006 19:01, Blogger Not A Neocon said...

When I clicked on the link for ScrewLC, I had high hopes for this site... I've been searching desperately for proof that LC was totally false so I could go back to living my life as usual (no longer feeling like some crazed lunatic, believing our government attacked it's own people)... I start by reading point number one, usually the strongest point, a point which should help to lure me into the website. And all I get is: the pilot, who participated in an exercise at the Pentagon which involved a Boeing 757 crashing into the building, the very pilot whose plane supposedly crashed into the building on 9/11, actually worked for AA starting in 1979...

Whew! What a relief! Thank God for this site. Obviously, since he's been working for AA since 1979 then makes perfect since that his plane (out of thousands of other flights...) was the plane to be hijacked. Oh wait... actually that doesn't really prove a damn thing. Regardless of when he started working for AA, you offered no proof against the point which LC made. All you accomplished was putting out a failed attempt to distract from real idea.

Come on Screw Loose Change, you have to see the forest through the trees!

Everyone else: Keep up the comments! Free flow of ideas is great! However, keep in mind that there is no reason to get so furious at each other. Facts are facts, no matter how loud you say them. We can't reduce 9/11 to emotions, if we every want the truth to come out we have to be methodical, logical, and above all reasonable. Research information, spread that information to others and never stop discussing.

 
At 28 May, 2006 21:34, Blogger Bryan Alaspa said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 May, 2006 10:22, Blogger conbobulus said...

People seem to missing the point and credible sources to back up their 'evidence' to prove either way if the us government instigated or fail to stop the attacks of 911 equally no has proved that they ‘unequivocally’ (far from it) had nothing to do with it. And I’ve read the comments for and against and the simple one fact that remains is serious question about that day still need to be answered by an independent investigation/public inquiry done by the judiciary with NO ties to any political party or corporation and that is what this documentary is aimed at doing, it is aimed at putting conspiracy theories to rest by having a report that the wide consensus of the American people and the global community will accept as an honest account of what happen that day. So far we have the 911 commissions report which is not independent of government and therefore to open to scrutiny it also leaves many gaps the main one evidence linking al qaeda to the 911 attacks several of the supposed bombers are alive…. http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm
(has links to crediable sources BBC, The Telegraph, The Guidian ect)
So if the intelligence about these suspects is proven to be false how credible are the other names on the list? Is al qaeda responsible? If so where’s the evidence?
And there is no link between al qeada and iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
so if intelligence about that is wrong why did we invade iraq?

WMD of coarse

NO NO wait that’s also not true!!

To free the Iraqi people of coarse!!

YES YES that’s what it was about all along

So we invaded the sovereignty of another county to change a regime which is in direct violation of international law . And before some idiot starts quoting UN resolutions at me the fact of the matter is that it clearly states if saddam fails to disarm there will be serious consequences he had disarmed he had no WMD no military power of any significance in the region let alone enough to threaten us, how do we justify the invasion? And critics might say oh but isn’t it wonderful the Iraqi people are free and we’ve done them a favour by getting rid of that evil tyrant saddam. Well try telling that to the families of the 38,990 Iraqi civilians dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm
compared to the 2996 in the 911 attacks
http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/
We need to get some perspective here if the intelligence is wrong aboutal qaeda being responsible for 911(?)
links to al qaeda and iraq and bout iraq having WMD then who is to blame and that is the question we should be asking because there has been nobody held accountable for this grouse incompetence or coercion in something far more sinister and the longer we let this continue the more blood we will have on are hands

THE KEY DUTY OF ANY DEMOCRACTIC CITIZEN IS TO HOLD THERE ELECTED REPROSENTATIVES ACCOUNTABLE

 
At 29 May, 2006 15:36, Blogger insidejob said...

it's quite easy to build a big straw-man by debunking some of the errors in loose change. what is not so easy is coming to grips with all of the true claims in loose change, and especially coming to grips with all the very important facts not included in loose change. loose change mentions building 7, but it should have highlighted building 7. building 7 may be the single most crucial piece of evidence:

first, my humble assessment of what happened: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 may or may not have hit the Pentagon - the Raytheon Global Hawk has the same wingspan, but the difficult question is, if there were no bodies on the scene, how could they hide this? Flight 77 may be a red herring to throw us off the scent. The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour, when the CIA knew planes had been hijacked. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Porter Goss, Marvin Bush, and others will be on trial for mass murder and treason when the following information becomes known to a critical mass of the public. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures, but aluminum aircrafts would not have posed much of a threat to a colossal mesh of steel beams. The building was, after all designed to withstand aircraft impacts. NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the naive researcher) explain the collapses. the alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. the report is misleading in many many other ways. much more here :

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

they completely ignore building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had been engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening proximal beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this disaster actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.

Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002


Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all "nonimmediate" responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

True, Charles Burlingame retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

Burlingame then retired from the Navy and took a job at American Airlines. Less than a year later, on September 11, 2001, his Boeing 757 allegedly hits the Pentagon.

Coincidence?


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)

Coincidence?

 
At 29 May, 2006 15:48, Blogger insidejob said...

oops, I realize that I noted that Burlingame retired 20 years earlier, then later in the post said that he retired a year earlier. the "year earlier" part was in there because that came from a Word file that I had written earlier, while I was still in the earlier stages of my research.

 
At 29 May, 2006 21:49, Blogger Unemplawyer said...

Well.... If this website doesn't implode after that post insidejob it is truly a conspiracy. Good show!!

Now that the physical and chronological evidence is almost impossible to doubt, let me address one more point...

I cannot believe how hard people fight to accept the official story. Silverstein's press agent saying that "pull the building" meant to pull the fire figters out is such ludicrous spin it is insulting. If you see the interview, it is obvious that he mentions the pull in the context of a building collapse. I think he even uses hand motions to show what he is talking about. I don't know that he financed this whole deal, but one would have to have fecal matter for brains to think that he did not have something do do with the deliberate destruction of at least WTC 7. Amazing that the evidence is so stark and people refuse to even look.

This, and forgive me for being critical of the US body politique, is evident amongst even the most left politicians. Democrats now know that they cannot be taken seriously if they don't tow the war mongering line. "Ever since 9-11" seems to be the mantra of anyone trying to get anything done. So herein lies the greatest tragedy of all: anyone in the US with any apirations of success is forced to swallow the official story and profess it as the truth.

Thus, the myth is perpetuated, and everytime it is spoken it becomes more and more accepted.

I am a history major, and this is the scariest shit I have ever heard of. Repeat a lie often enough, and it ceases to be a lie..... officially.

Can you imagine a new generation of engineering textbooks that claim plane collisions can cause massive skyscrapers to defy science and spontaneously combust. In order to keep this lie alive, those books will be published eventually. When that day comes, I would advise large scale construction projects to deny tenders from US educated engineers. Would you want to cross a bridge built by someone who believes this shit?

There are greater implications here.

 
At 30 May, 2006 08:54, Blogger James B. said...

Flight 77 may or may not have hit the Pentagon - the Raytheon Global Hawk has the same wingspan, but the difficult question is, if there were no bodies on the scene, how could they hide this?

A Global Hawk has a similar wingspan, but only about 1/10 the mass, and is much slower. Besides, it has a very distinctive shape, that could never be mistaken for a commercial jetliner, even in the worst visual conditions.

Bodies were found at the scene, so it is a pointless question. One soldier reported finding bodies still strapped to their seats.

 
At 30 May, 2006 15:12, Blogger insidejob said...

like I said, "if there were no bodies on the scene, how could they hide this?"

my whole point about Flight 77 was that it was probably a deliberate red herring, and probably did hit the Pentagon. Rumsfeld and co. probably are not releasing the videos so they can release them later and say, "hey look. all you fools were wrong. see, here's Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." I think it may be a deliberate tactic to discredit the truth movement. they recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames show.

that said, I'm not convinced by what one soldier allegedly said. could you give a source? what about all the emergency responders? again, flight 77 is a minor issue compared to the vast amount of real evidence of an inside job, and I gave considerable evidence that, even if Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, it was planned by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others, who used agents in the Pakistani intelligence agency as a middle-man to to dupe the terrorists.

any thoughts on all the real evidence I gave of an inside job and controlled demolition at the WTC? disinformation websites use the tactic of cherry-picking the false claims and ignoring the true claims. we should focus on the real evidence.

 
At 30 May, 2006 20:25, Blogger insidejob said...

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that both Loose Change and In Plane Site were part of a deliberate disinformation campaign - they blend false claims with true claims in order to discredit the truth movement. there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims. mixing false claims with true claims is a common disinformation tactic. the cover of the Loose Change DVD actually sandwiches 2 false claims with 2 true claims. the websites (below) give strong evidence that both videos were intended to throw people off the scent of the real evidence of an inside job. the author of the first site writes "if it (Loose Change) is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such." in other words, the authors of Loose Change may be trying to throw us off from the real evidence of an inside job, or they may have good intentions but have been fooled somewhat by, for example, the maker of In Plane Site:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

Rumsfeld's "slip-up" about a "missile" hitting the Pentagon was probably intentional.

you guys are right to debunk Loose Change, but 9-11 was definitely an inside job (see my post above).

 
At 06 June, 2006 13:42, Blogger ~ FluxRostrum said...

I know You are But What am I?

 
At 10 June, 2006 11:44, Blogger Joyce said...

Interesting reading...it is hard to know the truth, probably never will. Even so it would be foolish to believe the U.S. govt does not practice deception, even (especially) upon it's own citizens. No doubt the events of 9/11 have changed the way our government controls our lives, just as , I'm fairly sure, they were intended to.

 
At 10 June, 2006 14:08, Blogger Paradigm Buster said...

These arguments about getting an 'independent' non-governmental body are merely a smokescreen for getting new actors into the government.

which is really what i would advocate, let us have We the People in power. They don't want a non-governmental body to investigate the incident, they want to be elevated into a government-ordained body themselves.

Stop the bullcrap.

 
At 10 June, 2006 14:13, Blogger Paradigm Buster said...

My personal opinion, the event was orchestrated to bring down the U.S. government and I pray that the American people will see it for what it was and insure that the perpetrators are brought to justice for the Americans killed (mostly members of our government, mostly us). If American traitors were involved in the conspiracy, we need to find them, and shove the American flag right in their faces.

I don't think the US would orchestrate Northwoods, I do think the UN would or even this insurgent Islamic Empire of the former Ottoman Empire and its various satellites. The real source of 9/11, in my mind, is none other than the League of Nations.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:47, Blogger Paradigm Buster said...

Believe me people, YOU are the rightful inheritors of the American government. If there are people trying to 'bring you down' then we fellow Americans want to know about it.

 
At 24 June, 2006 06:49, Blogger LuderAndersFogh said...

So basicly this blog is all about discrediting the conspiracy..
Why put so much time into disproving something that wasnt ment to be taken at face value? Is this a government site or?
yeah thats a conspiracy for you ^^ haha

 
At 28 June, 2006 03:49, Blogger thetruth said...

hey all! am new to this whole thing and i have watched the loose change videos, and after reading the info on this site i am really confused, well ino it was all a lie, but i am wanting more info on the whole event leading up2 the 911, ant i also was wanting the truth behind it all, so if anyone can tell me wher i can get these info from or if thers any videos with the truth in them then plzz let me know. thank you!!

 
At 28 June, 2006 22:40, Blogger nick said...

Revolution is Truth,
every floor above where the plane hit was supported by the beams on the floor the plane hit. forget the fire, forget the plane for a second. get a construction crew to go up and gently remove every beam the plane blew out... do you honestly believe the building wont eventually fall?
you say 'steel melts at 2750F' pretty emphatically. i can say 'water boils at 100F' but ya know what, at 1000 ft altitude it may boil at 95F. on mount everest you can boil water at 75F. you're not even taking into account the carbon content of the steel, which has everything to do with it's bending point, which by the way is nowhere near 2750F. a blacksmith bends high carbon steel in a tiny oven fueled by a couple pounds of COAL. but thousands of gallons of jet fuel won't do the trick, wow that makes alot of sense!

 
At 28 June, 2006 22:55, Blogger nick said...

bye the way Revolution is Truth, you say 'it's important to note the inner core blah blah blah should have held the building up'. the actual film claims to have video evidence of explosives going off on the lower floors. only there's a slight problem with that, because they claim the explosions happened on the OUTER part of the building. so why didn't the steel beams at the core hold the building up? answer that, genius.

 
At 28 June, 2006 23:35, Blogger aj1223 said...

Hello,
I am a 16 year old boy and I recently viewed the Loose Change video and thought it provided inevitable evidence of a conspiracy. Although I believe a majority of the video is false, it offers a lot of strong evidence. Still, I am not completely convinced yet. Please anyone help me, I want to know the truth as I am currently trying to spread the word about this conspiracy.

Also, isn't it enough proof when the live footage of the two towers collapsing shows flashes of detonations going off as the tower falls?

I want to know what parts of the movie are truthful and i want to know the solid evidence.

Did the government do this to give a reason for war?

Please contact me by email with your knowledge at bt8_ball@yahoo.com.

thank you for your help in furthering my knowledge on these attacks.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:11, Blogger Mr. St. John said...

Why does OBL take all the credit?
What does the US have to gain--other than economic collapse?
Wouldn't risking exposure, if the "terrorists" were still alive in the middle east, do extreme damage to any credibility?
There are just too many questions that would risk any scenerio of an inside job.
And ultimately, what would the administration have to gain in such an event?
And the investors making millions off the airline stock--can't Al-Qaeda buy stocks?

 
At 03 July, 2006 20:37, Blogger screaminmorons said...

its funny when he links to all those pictures of debris from the "plane" that hit the pentagon.

you showed the same pieces of metal several times....

and loose change never said there was not debris....they said there was some debris...

and there was...but you mean to tell me and everyone that the plane was completely demolished?

except a few pieces...and that it left a round hole....

I have seen (as well as everyone here) plane wreckage...


YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT THERE ARE FIVE PIECES OF METAL!?!

thats it???

are you really taht delusional?

every plane wreckage i have seen has been scattered everywhere. and just like in loose change, there is usually engines, tail section, wings, bodies...and countless other things...

yet you show fivve pieces of metal and say...its lies...look, see metal...


you are the reason this government is succeding and working...good job voting on bush


YOU FUCKIN MORON

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:01, Blogger Starvision said...

I applaud the efforts you put into "debunking: Loose Change, and I think you have succeeded in part in finding problems with LC. But I do have to say that the bulk of the forensic evidence with the LC hypothesis revolves around the fall of WTC buildings 1,2 and 7. The Pentagon attack is still quite in question, but how 2 masive reinforced steel-concrete buildings exloded into virtual volcanic ash and fell at neaqrly the speed of gravity remains the toughest mystery for the " I believe the government" crowd to exlain. Let's face it, WTC building 7 is a dead crow in the ointment here.
I don't want to sound like I am promoting my documentary here, but I produced a expose on the HIV/AIDS scam 10 years ago entitled "HIV=AIDS Fact or Fruad?" You can download it free from google.
What I have experienced is similar to what is going on with the "Loose change" debate. I have had countless disputes with people about hair-splitting details that detract from the more obvious flaws in the central arguement.
The real issue here concerns the forensics of the WTC buildings and the way they came down, not who worked for who, and at what time. It's an old debating trick to distract your oppositon and the actual issues with trivial points that ignore the prominent and obvious points tha can not be defended.
If scientists want to see canals and green valleys on mars, they will---even beyond common sense, and on the microscopic level if you give them enough money and credibility. I have experienced that with my work, and I sense that is what is going on with LC.

From what I have seen so far, I have to say that we ARE in serious trouble. The truth about 911 will come out, and with the tension rising as fast as it is, we could see some angry reactions. We ALL must continue to keep this debate under control and keep the honest free-flow of information proceeding on course.

starvision

 
At 06 July, 2006 15:22, Blogger 9-11 was not a conspiracy said...

For all of you people that say this has good counterclaims but no evidence, u are morons. each counter claim has a link labled, "source" that will send you to their evidence that it is true...

 
At 12 July, 2006 07:34, Blogger Kyle said...

I'm not a big "conspiracy theory" type of person. I actually took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the Army. I even voted for G.W., twice! I've heard many arguments that could not hold weight and have held to my convictions and support for our current government. Until...until I came across the LC video. The video had information that I never considered or even heard of before. I'm still looking in to the claims of LC and as of today, I can't make a solid stand for conspiracy or not. One thing that I am having trouble with and find little about, is the information on the people who were listed on each flight that crashed. LC video quotes investigators as saying "not one drop of blood" had been seen, etc. Are the names on file for each flight made up? Did these people really exist? What about interviewed family members who cry for their lost love one in the plane crash? Were these people paid some of the gold and stock trading money to disappear and have no contact with their family? Somebody help me. Thanks...Kyle

 
At 12 July, 2006 19:28, Blogger Dog Town said...

Who the F are you morons.He sources everything here.Not enough for ya?Try the link to Loose Change Guide by gravy.It is long but it is sourced through out.You guys are funny though.Kooky kids!

 
At 18 July, 2006 06:48, Blogger who said...

you need to read carefully!

on the first truth you stated
Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place.

the source you gave you should have read more carefully, for one he started working for AA in 1989. Now if you read on further it says "He remained active in the reserve, working until 1996 as a liaison in the Pentagon." It did not say he retired! Clearly stating that he was active in the reserve, just no longer in the liaison in the petagon, but never actually uses the word "retired".

 
At 21 July, 2006 13:19, Blogger James B. said...

No, read it more carefully.


A senior pilot at American Airlines, he began his airline career in 1979 after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1971.
------------------------
He was a 1971 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and an honor graduate of the Navy "Top Gun" school, in Miramar, California. He flew F-4 Phantoms for the Navy and served aboard the USS Saratoga. He continued military service as a reserve officer retiring at the rank of Captain in 1996.

 
At 23 July, 2006 17:46, Blogger a_skeptik said...

Why don't you take a stab at debunking the synchronized demolition of the two towers? Why don't you bring engineer proof that this could have happened due to the heat from the explosions over many hours, let alone less than an hour each?

Sorry, never use the 911 Commission as a source to prove anything regarding this tragedy. It was simply a case of the fox investigating the hen house, and even at that was full of didacted testimony and potential evidence.

 
At 23 July, 2006 17:47, Blogger a_skeptik said...

Why don't you take a stab at debunking the synchronized demolition of the two towers? Why don't you bring engineer proof that this could have happened due to the heat from the explosions over many hours, let alone less than an hour each?

Sorry, never use the 911 Commission as a source to prove anything regarding this tragedy. It was simply a case of the fox investigating the hen house, and even at that was full of didacted testimony and potential evidence.

 
At 23 July, 2006 17:47, Blogger a_skeptik said...

Why don't you take a stab at debunking the synchronized demolition of the two towers? Why don't you bring engineer proof that this could have happened due to the heat from the explosions over many hours, let alone less than an hour each?

Sorry, never use the 911 Commission as a source to prove anything regarding this tragedy. It was simply a case of the fox investigating the hen house, and even at that was full of didacted testimony and potential evidence.

 
At 24 July, 2006 00:08, Blogger The Yiddish Redneck said...

I can't believe what I read! Here are the rules for finding the 'truth,' which the 'Truth' people seem to follow:

Rule #1: The Government conspirators cannot offer any defense, no matter how logical, reasonable, scientific, or even common sensical, because any evidence that they present to debunk the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy (after all, they're conspirators... if they can conspire to conspirate, they can conspire to deny conspirating). Axiom #1: The conspiracy is truth; Anyone who claims that they aren't part of a conspiracy... is part of a conspiracy... especially if they're a known conspirator. Right? Of course. How else could they all deny involvement and wrong-doing in unison, unless they conspired to cover up the conspiracy?

Rule #2: Anyone who says that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is correct, intelligent, noble, upright, and a praiseworthy seeker of truth... that is, until their statements are proven false, in which case they were never really trying to expose the true conspiracy, but merely were working on a disinformation campaign mounted as part of the conspiracy, as a 'straw man' tactic to damage 'THE CAUSE.' Axiom: The Conspiracy is true; Anything that we once believed about the conspiracy, but has been proven false does not damage the credibility of the conspiracy, because we never believed that untrue stuff... only the true stuff about the conspiracy. The presence of evidence that debunks aspects of the conspiracy should NOT, under any circumstances be interpreted to cast doubts on the reality of the conspiracy and the truth of it's proponents; Instead, it should only be interpreted to illustrate that the conspirators are actively working to undermine the cause of spreading the truth about the conspiracy, by spreading false information about their conspiracy, while claiming to be conspiracy theorists, and then debunking their own false conspiracy theories about their true conspiracies, in order to discredit their detractors.

Rule #3: George Bush (the ring-leader of the conspiracy) is evil. Everybody knows that. He must be... because we wouldn't hate him so much if he was a nice guy! Why? Because we are moral, good, reasonable, liberal, intelligent people. It's not even worth debating! Thus, for someone to debate it, they must be ignorant, duped, moronic, and a 'Bush-lover.' After all, how could anyone support someone who is at the head of such a monstrous and evil conspiracy? Our views are the only objective truth in the universe! To deny them is to assert ones own ignorance and jingoism! One must question authority, because authority is always wrong! It is the mark of an educated, well-adjusted, thinking person to dissent. To not dissent is to become a patsy for the conspiracy. You can't just go along with what people say? They're liars and conspirators. Now, listen to what we say, because we tell the truth about those liars and conspirators. Axiom #3: We tell the truth and they lie. They're lying conspirators. How can you tell that they're evil, lying conspirators? Easy... Bush is their leader. This is so simple!

Folks, I've read an intersting description of nearly 150 people will close Clinton connections dying under mysterious circumstances. It's been much publicized by credible sources, like internet chain letters. Leaning to the right, as I do, I'm inclined to believe. Why? Because Clinton is a malefactor... an evil, evil, self-serving devil. Anything he's accused of, I'll be sure he's guilty of.

Perhaps you can relate?

 
At 25 July, 2006 21:13, Blogger reaper said...

first off i just wanna say that if lc is 80% wrong then why does it make some good points as to if a boeing 747 crashed in a field in pa then where the hell are the pieces becuase every plane crash i have ever seen footage of there is always identifable peices scattered around the crash site and in pa there were none not to mention there were no bodies found according to the on site corener... and how did the gold get moved from under one tower and moved under tower 5 not to mention if 9/11 wasnt strategically planned by our crooked government then how do you explain the thrid tower (which was not touched by any airplane or any debri from the twin towers) imploding more than 7 hours after the twin towers and if it did in fact implode do to the twin towers then why didnt any of the other surrounding building implode.... why was it only building 5 which was full of incrimonating files that was destroyed.... not to mention if asoma ben lauden has been wanted since 1998 why the hell didnt our cheif securtary of the cia take ben lauden into custody in 2000 when he went to visit him in an american hospital.... how do you explain all of the government files an documents of repeated suggestions by our securtary of defense to crash planes into the trade center and why did the guy that took out a 99 year lease on the trade center take out a multi million dollar insurance policy specifically for acts of terrorism 6 weeks prior to 9/11..... why is the fbi with holding the tapes from across the street from the pentagon.... why would the guy call his mom an introduce himself using his full name... THE GOVERNMENT IS COVERING UP 9/11 JUST LIKE THEY DO AREA 51 SO I SAY...... FUCK THE GOVERNMENT...

 
At 28 July, 2006 12:39, Blogger SHUTEMDOWN said...

2. Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock.

Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock. Source

How can you say there is nothing unusual about you single source hypocrite? By the way, try to find out the names of those who placed those orders for put options. You are brainwashed, there's no hope for you...

IS SITE IS FOR SHEEP. THE CREATORS OF IT ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, WHETHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT. DON'T GIVE IN TO IGNORANCE. RESEARCH THE FACTS AND ISSUES YOURSELF.

If you still think people like me are the whack jobs, at least go answer some important questions on my blog, so I can sleep easier at night while the New World Order takes away my liberties fighting a war that “could last decades” in the name of Peace. Giant billboards with GWB's face on it. GWB dressing in military garb. Police carrying fully automatic weapons and wearing militia gear. The government monitoring phones. Search and seizures without probably cause. The list goes on. You say, “If your not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.” I say you are a good sheep, stay in the herd. Meanwhile, Real Patriots want answers. Show us a video of a Commercial Jet Airbus slamming into the pentagon, and I will shut up for one day.

Go to my blog and answer some simple questions please, if you can, and stop acting so childish.
SHUT THIS LAME SITE DOWN NOW! ANSWER REAL QUESTIONS HERE

 
At 28 July, 2006 14:44, Blogger SHUTEMDOWN said...

3. Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane.

Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time. Source

He's not the only witness that made that claim, just the only one sited in LC. So what about the hundreds of other witnesses?




4. Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.

Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source

Relevance level LOW, like most counter attacks on LC. Truly it wouldn't matter if it was a military, commercial, or UFO – it should have never reached the Pentagon's forbidden airspace zone (even on a day when hijackings are below average), and certainly never slammed into the side opposite of the direction it was coming in at. That in itself is beyond probability. Would you do a 270 degree turn to hit a target you could have hit head on? Stick to the HARD CORE ISSUES here, and quit wasting our time. This “object” (we shall refer to it as) was heading towards DC after 2 hijackings in less than a half hour resulted in the largest scale attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Answer that one. Did anyone think it was strange that an Object was flying sporadically towards DC, looking like a guided missile or military jet, and NORAD didn't even flinch?




5. Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground,
Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.

Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Source

Where is the debris of the wings then? And the TWO 9 foot engines? The bodies of the passengers? The information from the alleged flight data recorders found? All of that just disintegrated much the way that hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete was pulverized into dust at the Trade Towers, right?




6.Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.

Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source

Your source for this is just as questionable as the LC issues raised. The only thing Avery did was raise questions, not advance Cts. Just SHOW US A VIDEO OF A FUCKING PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON for the love of FREEDOM of INFORMATION!!! Do you doubt that there are hundreds of cameras aiming at the Pentagon at every minute of the day, both onsite and off? Are you misinformed? Have you ever been to the Pentagon before? Your source didn't show any bodies, by the way.

7. Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines.

Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source

Weak argument again. Stick to the HARD CORE stuff. The engine there is NOT a 9 FOOT in DIAMETER Jet Turbine, or even an axillary turbine fro a 747. The wheel rims are much narrower than those of the landing gear of a 747. All of the debris is inconsistent with a 747, including the unburned fuselage that everyone uses as “evidence.” If that piece was available, how come the other 99% of the fuselage cannot be seen or found in any wreckage photos?

8. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior.

Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. The engine in question is consistent with that of the Rolls-Royce RB211 used by the 757. Source and here

Questioning the credibility of Karl Schwartz, then citing your own blog and tunnel-vision research does nothing to discredit the fact that the engine is not an engine from a 747, regardless of what engine it is. Your second source proves nothing either, because that is the only piece found that is consistent with ANY jet engine, regardless of any other factors. Answer this: If that is the QUOTE: central hub of a compressor or turbine stage UNQUOTE then where is the rest of the titanium and steel engine, includiing the other one and the axillary engine found on a 747? Your source is once again just as questionable as LC. While reading their claims, one wonders if they are certain of anything they are saying.

9. Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.

Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response. Source

Ok, how do you use a tent to aid in the crash response? Again, who cares? Bottom line, quit using yourself and other msg boards and blogs as sources. That is not “sourcing.” The problem with push button publishing is idiots like you are aloud to fuel a debate against people who are only seeking the truth. Stop all of this Pentagon debunking by showing us a video. The fact that you found this info to be insignificant, yet you bring it up as a LC LIE tells me you don't have the balls to answer the real questions – lest you site sources that are just as questionable as Avery's. Pick on someone your own size I.E.- someone with ZERO BALLS.

10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?

Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source

Your source raises more questions than it answers, the tell-tale sign of a frustrated tunnel-vision investigation who works with only one hypothesis. The two important ones to me are:

Where is the damage from the 45' tall (sitting on the ground) stabilizer section of the plane? The plane didn't skid onto the ground or there would be markings and those spools wouldn't be intact. And what about the left wing? Your source claims that it “probably” (a word used a lot by your source[s]) did NOT penetrate the wall. So where is the left wing? It disintegrated? You might say “read further down the page...” I did. They conflict their own findings on several occasions, read it yourself. Further down, the probability is that the RIGHT wing didn't penetrate the outer wall. ? Indeed, no one can keep a straight face when saying that the remains of this enormous craft simply disintegrated into the guts of an office building when there are photos of office equipment, desks, and books seen in the building's wreckage. That is why they put it on a website for YOU TO CITE.

IS SITE IS FOR SHEEP. THE CREATORS OF IT ARE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, WHETHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT. DON'T GIVE IN TO IGNORANCE. RESEARCH THE FACTS AND ISSUES YOURSELF.

If you still think people like me are the whack jobs, at least go answer some important questions on my blog, so I can sleep easier at night while the New World Order takes away my liberties fighting a war that “could last decades” in the name of Peace. Giant billboards with GWB's face on it. GWB dressing in military garb. Police carrying fully automatic weapons and wearing militia gear. The government monitoring phones. Search and seizures without probably cause. The list goes on. You say, “If your not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.” I say you are a good sheep, stay in the herd. Meanwhile, Real Patriots want answers. Show us a video of a Commercial Jet Airbus slamming into the pentagon, and I will shut up for one day.

Go to my blog and answer some simple questions please, if you can, and stop acting so childish.
SHUT THIS LAME SITE DOWN NOW! ANSWER REAL QUESTIONS HERE

 
At 28 July, 2006 23:21, Blogger Tony said...

this is really a south park gag, right?

you missed the point of LOOSE CHANGE--it's to ask questions, something that the news industry has failed to do for some time.

the other point? like Hunter S. Thompson suggested--"who benefits from this?" Osama got nothing out of this except adulation from radical Islamicists...who are now fighting our troops in Iraq. BTW, those Islamicists were kept in check by Sadam Husein. Isn't that a funny coincidence?

also, who do you work for, Mr. Screw Loose Change?

 
At 31 July, 2006 09:47, Blogger me, myself, and I said...

Another point of contention that the debunkers may consider is the assertion that only high explosives could have brought down WTC. They cite a bomber having crashed into The Empire State Building as empirical evidence to support their case. Yet, they fail to realize that bombers travelled 1/5 the rate of speed as modern jet-liners and carried considerably less fuel. The documentarians also point to other structure fires that did not result in the collapse of a highrise. Again, those structures did not withstand the force of a jet slamming into them. The sheer magnitude of the crash would have caused structural integrity problems, even if there was no fire whatsoever.

 
At 31 July, 2006 09:47, Blogger me, myself, and I said...

Another point of contention that the debunkers may consider is the assertion that only high explosives could have brought down WTC. They cite a bomber having crashed into The Empire State Building as empirical evidence to support their case. Yet, they fail to realize that bombers travelled 1/5 the rate of speed as modern jet-liners and carried considerably less fuel. The documentarians also point to other structure fires that did not result in the collapse of a highrise. Again, those structures did not withstand the force of a jet slamming into them. The sheer magnitude of the crash would have caused structural integrity problems, even if there was no fire whatsoever.

 
At 31 July, 2006 19:17, Blogger arkie said...

People don't seem to realize that there is never going to be a 100% accurate, detailed account of what happened. There are always going to be those people who try to use this as an excuse to bash on the President. Fact is, I could go out and find "credible sources" that argue that the moon is blue and made of cheese and post it on here, and some moron is going to believe it. So if you have questions, do the research yourself.....don't take anyone's word for it. Don't listen to the "Loose Change", or "Screw Loose Change" sites. Get off your lazy asses and research it yourself before you go bashing our countries leadership. Oh, and going to sites like this is not research!!!!!!

 
At 02 August, 2006 17:08, Blogger raskolnikov said...

hi

i am new to this loose change hysteria

in that

i have just seen the movie and am suffocated by the feeling of wanting the WHOLE TRUTH to come out; and that has led me to try (in my little reptillian brain) to PROVE ABOSOLUTELY that this was an inside job, and discover exactly what the motivations behind it all were.

some of you (and this is probably just a result of different circumstances, upbringing, etc) have seen the movie and taken the other route, trying to PROVE ABSOLUTELY that loose change is all a big lie.

either way, it is our reactive, confused, desperate way to try to understand and thereby control a world that is totally beyond our power to control. Same coin, different sides.

Anyways, I'm fascinated by the truth. A little scared, but mostly fascinated.

I feel like we're all people reacting from the same place and agree that getting emotional about it doesn't bring any of us closer to knowing what really happened. ALL of us are left hanging with some pretty huge question marks, even those of us who have far more developed opinions and views on the situation than others. If we could just be candid and straight-up with eachother, we'd all come a lot closer to getting these questions answered, between all of us, we probably have a lot of information.

so, here's me: I'm coming from the "I'm convinced the towers were rigged with bombs but still have a lot of questions and see a lot of weaknesses in other parts of the conspiracy theories" camp.

questions:

how the HELL does a group of people actually have the audacity to think they'll get away with something like that? How many guys are in on this thing, anyways?

Are there ACTUALLY "Dr. Evil"-esque bad guys out there capable of calculating something as huge as this? And for what? Money? Money is alright and all, but it's not like it gives you eternal life or anything.

What about the families of the victims? Particularly of the passengers on flight 93? You'd think that they'd be a little more pissed off and a little bit louder about all of this, particularly if there was even a shadow of a chance that their loved ones were still ALIVE somewhere, shit.

Can someone post a link to the 9-11 commission's official explanation of how the two towers fell? And if at all possible explain as much of the math to me in layman's terms? Thanks.

Not to open another can of worms, but can anyone give me a more satisfying explanation of the US's manipulations in the middle east than the vague liberal standby, "it's all about oil?" There are more secure ways of getting our mitts on oil (installing puppet governments, etc etc etc). I understand that war benifits the people in power (arms industry stands to gain billions yada yada) but it's always left very general and I'd like to understand exactly who is benefiting and how and why. Example: even in my very naive state of political awareness, it is clear to me that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE very much wants to involve an "international peacekeeping force" (read: a US-backed military) in a conflict with lebanon, syria, and through them, iran. (oops, opened the can of worms). I have my liberal politics 101 digested enough to have a vague understanding of oil-grubbing and the evils of the military-industrial complex. will someone who is knowledgeable and unemotional please educate me further with some more specific information?

for those of you who honestly believe ANYTHING, remember that people like me come to a site like this just as exited at the prospect of having our suspicions DISPROVED as we are about having them proved. I'mjust hungry for a truth that I can get my head around, understand, and believe. I think we all are. So "moron" this and "asshole" that aren't nearly as effective things to put out there as, well, undisputable, carefully explained fact.

Please please please those of you with a strong counter-argument for how those towers fell, post them. Because I remember watching that footage ON THE DAY, and even then, a part of me was thinking, "whoa, how the hell did THAT just happen?!" And i can't shake it. And until one of you posts something credible, i HAVE to believe those towers were rigged with bombs.

 
At 02 August, 2006 18:10, Blogger WinstonSmithJnr said...

"The proles, normally apathetic about the war,
were being lashed into one of their periodical frenzies of patriotism.
As though to harmonize the general mood,
rocket bombs had been killing larger numbers of people than usual." George Orwell - 1984

 
At 03 August, 2006 11:12, Blogger eddie said...

Hi these is Eddie this is very interesting. Im speaking as a believer in the Bible her is something most of you problably Dont know the Bible tells that America will one day force all the world to worship the dragon. This is recorded in Revelation here is a site you must listen to the sermoun is titled America In Bible Prophecy http://3abn.org/media_archives.cfm

 
At 03 August, 2006 17:32, Blogger ConspiraciesR4Morons said...

My God, you 9/11 skeptics are idiots. How in the world can a guy like Bush that can't even speak English properly be behind an intricate shadowy plot like this? Do you realize how many people would have to keep a secret to keep this thing from being discovered? Do you seriously believe this is possible in Washington D.C., where a new leak comes out every other day? Why is it easier for you to believe that this whole thing was concocted by a power mad American administration than it is to believe what ACTUALLY happened--a handful of highly motivated Islamic fanatics caught America sleeping and socked it to us good? Crazy. You are crazy people.

 
At 03 August, 2006 17:32, Blogger ConspiraciesR4Morons said...

My God, you 9/11 skeptics are idiots. How in the world can a guy like Bush that can't even speak English properly be behind an intricate shadowy plot like this? Do you realize how many people would have to keep a secret to keep this thing from being discovered? Do you seriously believe this is possible in Washington D.C., where a new leak comes out every other day? Why is it easier for you to believe that this whole thing was concocted by a power mad American administration than it is to believe what ACTUALLY happened--a handful of highly motivated Islamic fanatics caught America sleeping and socked it to us good? Crazy. You are crazy people.

 
At 03 August, 2006 17:37, Blogger ConspiraciesR4Morons said...

Yes, Raskolnikov, Dr. Evil exists and is out there.

Freaking morons.

 
At 06 August, 2006 14:54, Blogger genericsn said...

My god.
I can not believe how painfully arrogant people can be.
How many hours have many of you spent checking back to see who has proven your newest conspiracy theory wrong?
No no, better question, how many of you are
a) the president of the United States?
b) involved in even a slightly significant way with the U.S. government?
or
c) Dylan Avery?
Because if you're neither a or b, then of course you're wrong, you have no idea what's going on.
And if you're not c, then you're pretty damn close, seeing how much bull shit you're positive you're right about.
I am not saying I know anything about this, don't accuse me of hypocrisy, because I am humble enough to know that I know nothing of the inner workings of the U.S. government and probably never will.
If you think this was totally a "middle east" thing, you're wrong.
If you think this was an "inside job", you're wrong.
Any theories you can possibly speculate about this, they will never be accurate.
Stop pretending you know something when you don't.
By the by, Loose Change was put together from scraps of unclassified documents and videos that Dylan and co. simply zoomed in on.
I know our government isn't the greatest, but come on guys, give them a LITTLE credit. If this was an inside thing, don't you think they would do a little better at covering this one up?

 
At 07 August, 2006 12:17, Blogger shopgirl7 said...

Any theories anyone speculates about this will of course never be 100% accurate. That's why they are theories and not facts. The point is, people are asking questions about our government. If you have any brains at all you would already know that you can't believe everything the media tells you...why should you believe everything the government tells you? Not everyone in the world is an honest person...that goes for the government and the loose change film makers.

But the thing that really gets me about the Loose Change movie is the way the towers fell...

..i just don't believe that it was those planes alone that made them fall. I believe there were bombs of some sort in the basement that were set off around the same time those planes hit.

Why would they do this and even bother with the planes crashing into the buildings? I don't know, but if the government was covering up for something, isn't it more believable for them to say that hi-jackers took control of planes, and ran into the buildings that way, rather than have people question the bombs, saying, Where was authority or security when bombs were placed there? Or how come dogs didn't sniff the bombs out long before they went off?

Using planes hides the fact that bombs were even used, therefore the bombs are not even questioned.

I just don't believe the government 100%. And if the government was involved in any way, it's unfair that people have to die at their expense.

My father worked at one of the trade centers and happened to be off work that week on buisness. He could have died. Two of my friend's dads died and a man I used to babysit for died as well. I just don't understand what really goes on in America, but you can't believe everything that people say to you, that goes for these Loose Change guys AND the government...

You just have to figure out what you're going to believe...and do it by yourself, with your own research.

And you can't try and convince others of what you believe, because they're not always going to side with you.

I just think that everyone has to stop being so susceptible to the government and things they tell the American public.

 
At 07 August, 2006 14:17, Blogger lily said...

I've seen a lot of requests for more information, much of the same questions, and they are mostly good questions. Well here are my own, for consideration. I'm not trying to blame anyone for what happened, but I think that putting our heads together, so to speak, to find truth in all this mess, is all things considered, a good idea.

How did the WTC towers fall straight to the ground, one after burning for merely 1 hour, the other after 2? Even if the fires weakened the heavily reinforced steel they were actually burning near.. all the other floors below them weren't.. how did these collapse? With the weight? Not at freefall speeds. The floors below that were not touched by fire would have offered resistance to the momentum. these buildings collapsed without any sign of slowing once they started, one in 8 seconds, one in 10 seconds. The fires were not evenly distributed, why didn't the building collapse to the side? Like the top of the first building did.. which just shows for THAT buidling the explanation of weight & pressure causing the collapse does not hold up.

Now, for those of you who want to research these and other mysteries of the events on 9-11, let me offer you a few bones. Two websites with articles, one aimed at proving the official story is false, the other at proving the conspiracy story is bunk. For and Against, these websites both offer good points and counterpoints about the real events. Less smoke blowing and more technically in depth, they are worthy of sctutiny. I also include a link to some writing by FR Greening, a chemist who discusses possibilities about the aluminum, and other reactions of different components of the building that may have been implicit in the falling of the towers. How likely his claims are, well, I'm no chemist, I don't know.

Scholars for 9-11 Truth

Opposition in force


This blog has links to FR Greening's works.

 
At 08 August, 2006 03:11, Blogger danny said...

9/11 was carried out by the government. I know because my foot was itching that day, therefore it was obviously an inside job.

 
At 08 August, 2006 22:10, Blogger trainothought said...

I wonder what is harder to believe, that a government through incompetence failed the whole nation by being unable to prevent 911 from happening - or that they would be clever enough to have played any part in the conspiracy.

You have to remember that team Bush are the people that brought you the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, are spending 100's of billions of dollars to do it, (To be sure, any affiliate - Libertarian, Democratic, Whig - should at least be put in thumb screws), and don't seem to be having much luck at it.

Let's see, hmmmm... we have the most sophisticated air force in the world that rules Afghanistan’s' skies with impunity, and we can't even stop the poppy harvest over there??? So now we are losing the war on terror and the war on drugs???

It seems the "official" version of 911 is that the CIA is too stupid to keep track of all the people it has taught how to become efficient killers. Our government can’t figure out how to apply a budget and project management to our nation’s security, or armed conflict for that matter. (12 million criminals in our midst, although I really like their cooking and the job they did on my yard  )

And – Oh yeah – a lot of shitty contractors and architects get their buildings built in NY, NY. Where in WTC7 the sprinkler system doesn’t work that well, even though the CIA has offices in it??? Hope they weren’t storing, and losing, any information in there about terrorists.

It doesn’t seem so hard to believe now, does it?

 
At 11 August, 2006 18:16, Blogger Blogger said...

It's good to know our Government is not capable of doing these horrible things. I guess I can finally put to rest the Reichstag fires and the Gulf of Tonkin.
I can sleep at night now.
Thanks.

 
At 12 August, 2006 15:09, Blogger antievil1ranger said...

Former F.B.I. Division Chief Ted L. Gunderson [www.tedgunderson.com]---presently a Private Investigator---has determined that the 9-11 Terror Attack was an "inside job" involving a rogue element of the U.S. government. This blogs attempt to debunk "Loose Change" is a joke!!! Weighed in the unbiased balance of justice, evidence---both substantial and circumstantial---far outweight this ridiculous debunking endeavor and arouses suspicion as to who is behind this propaganda attempt...more likely than not funded and promoted by the same individuals who have colluded to "cover-up" the truth about 9-11 being an "inside job" by government spooks. This is ultimately a spiritual battle between the forces of dark and light, evil and righteousness, oppression and liberty. I feel sorry for those people who have erroneously or intentionally allied themselves with the enemy of TRUTH and "the American Way of life" which used to be founded on traditional, virtuous values and "the uniform enforcement of the law." The evil rogues administrating the U.S. government and foriegn policy who carried out this horrific crime against Americans (and humanity) are the same evil cabal who plotted the assassination of JFK---they have continued to increase there power and influence since succeeding in his murder. There modus operandi always follows the same pattern. American is under siege from within by a massive organized crime syndicate and racketeering enterprise that is cleverly and viciously operating under "color of law" to destroy our noble heritage and hard-won liberty. Wake up you FOOLS who blindly follow the grim reaper into the bottomless pit of utter ruination. We at Gunderson & Associates Professional Investigations endorse "Loose Change" as one of the finest films exposing the criminal conspiracy and cover-up concerning the 9-11 Terror Attack. Anyone reading this post who really wants to understand from a legal perspective how terrible thing really are should read the entire "Open Letter" posted by one to Ted Gunderson's associates to President Chavez of Venezuela >>> see: www.politicalasylumapplicant.blogspot.com ...and... www.williammcnamara.com >>> click DOCUMENTARY >>> watch "Malcolm clip - raw footage" and "Patriot." Watch all these mini-videos to see how corrupt all levels of government have become. Also see: www.freedomtofascism.com and www.infowars.com. Wake up and smell the blood and guts of the TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE that is already here.

 
At 17 August, 2006 14:04, Blogger mike said...

This is quite sad and pathetic... you claim that these are lies by saying, "this is actually what happened..." and citing the 911 commission report, other gov docs, OR not citing anything at all, hahaha, you know who wrote the 911 commission report? One of Bush's administration members, . You pick out these little points to refute, points that could be refuted left and right, but do you go after the big ones? The government PRAYS for people like you, to keep the lie going, to keep people confused. It's people like this asshole (who like many people before me, have pointed out his lack of sources) that make this country so torn on this issue. Open your eyes, grow up, and look at the facts, (many of which you can't even begin to disprove).

 
At 17 August, 2006 18:34, Blogger kendal said...

I really do believe that these "truths" as you call them ,, are mhorribly insufficently explained,,

so wait ok ,, at the pentagon ,, no bodies = incinerated?
plane fuel = burnt off? ( studies have proven that that amount of fuel would have burned for more than a day and contaminated the earth ordering a massive underground earth replacement.)

all of these what, 4 or 5 plane parts you show even fail to explain why clearly visiable in a clear picture of the larger (after colapse ) hole in the pentagon you can see a book , um burned, wooden desks, cork bulitan boards? ,,


you all are morons ,,

STOP TAKING THE EASY WAY OUT!! ,,

ASK QUESTIONS!!

before the military state sets in.

 
At 17 August, 2006 18:35, Blogger kendal said...

and thank you " freedom and democracy" whoever you are,,

 
At 17 August, 2006 18:39, Blogger kendal said...

9/11 commission ? ,, ,,

morons ,, thats like letting a criminal preside over his own trial ,,

get a clue

your gonna be making alot of "screw ..." vids i can tell ,,

there are thousands of witnesses, that all support the truth ,, not the governments horribly bias peice of shit explanation,,


so go home,, watch you bigscreen tv, and watch your Fox news, and pretend that everything is fine,,

 
At 17 August, 2006 18:43, Blogger kendal said...

james b,, the bigger hole was created many hours after the 16 ft hole was created when the upper and mid section of the building colapsed,, just so ,, you have another perspective,,

 
At 19 August, 2006 10:32, Blogger Justanotherbloodymess said...

I watched SLC and expected at least some rational discussion, not schoolboy comments about a very serious subject. There are a lot of people who are sceptical about what happened on that day and subsequent actions by the US Govt. There are still a lot of people who have closed their minds to the possibility that there was prior knowledge of the events and that they also aided the actions of the hijackers. It's time that everyone opened their minds to the fact that it was in the Govt's interest that it happened, how else could they justify the military budget?

The Neo Cons are using their New Order to make money at ANY price. If that means murdering many US citizens to profit from many global defence contracts, then, so be it. How else could they get an excuse to invade Iraq, they'd already used the 'babies out of incubators excuse'.

There are too many unanswered questions about 9/11. Certainly the 'pulling' of Tower 7, the lack of debris and damage to the Pentagon, the lost 3 minutes from Flight 93, Bush's brother involved in a demolition company that removed debris and remains from the WTC site, very quickly, I may add, are quite compelling and should have been cleared up a lot sooner. Any 'new' evidence now released would be treated very suspiciously. The US Govt have a lot to answer for, the truth will probably never be known and no-one will ever be brought to justice. I always thought China was bad when it comes to freedom but the US is certainly getting very close.

It's funny how they vowed to destroy dictators wherever they are! Then why haven't they invaded Zimbabwe, Korea or even China? Possibly because there's not enough oil to bother about.

One final thought, what if Bin Laden is actually a double agent working for the US?? If he was such a great enemy, why did the only flight out of the US after the attacks contain Mr Bush's guests, Bin Laden's family, the Saudi Royal Family???

 
At 20 August, 2006 18:46, Blogger Ezra'sMom said...

Dude you are a MORON! The links to the sources of your information come from your own website. How stupid are you? What makes you any more reliable than the guys who made this film? Besides, even if this website of yours is legit, who controls this ENTIRE country?! The Government has access to EVERYTHING. They can make up and cover up more information in a day then 2 guys with a camera could in a lifetime! Nope. Still sticking to my instincts about this one. Maybe this crappy website is enough for some people. But not for me...thanks

 
At 24 August, 2006 15:00, Blogger reineo said...

If they found the black box of flight 77 why don't they reveal the information on it? might help your case... one would think.

 
At 28 August, 2006 11:58, Blogger Actor Kent said...

Liberals who believe this particular conspiracy theory.
Lets just pretend for a moment that you are correct and bush and friends etc coordinated this horrible mass murder. If you believe that.. then assent to these ideas as well.
They are very powerful people.
They are very wealthy people.
They are very evil people.
(are we okay so far)
Therefore they will probably not limit their activities/membership to one political party. They probably don't REALLY have ideals the way us normal people would. So you will find them and their ilk spread out in all areas of politics. (That is fair right?)
I am just saying dont make this a Republican smearing issue. Evil people are in both parties.

Also... The limits to which these kinds of people will go to get their agenda to happen is without bounds. Right? I mean.. if people carried off this huge evil conspiracy we SHOULD be somewhat afraid of them. Concerned about our freedom.. RIGHT?

If you are with me so far.. and I don't see how you cannot be (if you agreed to the first points) then you MUST stand with me by the bill of rights and consitution and affirm that Americans MUST have freedom of speech and also MUST have the right to own weapons.

Please.. libs.. if you REALLY believe that evil exists on this level.. then at least be smart enough to realise we want weapons of all kinds spread out among the citizenry to protect against these evil men. That was the whole point of ammendment number TWO.
FREE SPEECH happens here....
Gun ownership happens at home.

One without the other... will lose us all 10.

 
At 30 August, 2006 15:21, Blogger Zered said...

You say the put options were normal when they were in fact some ten times more sold than normal, you can't refute that, and your "Truth" doesn't at all, it just distracts a person's thinking from the matter in question.

Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock.

Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock.

Well I can identify jets easily enough at 20,000 - 30,000 feet easily, F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, 757's, whatever, and that at about 3.5 - 6 miles, and I'm not even intimately involved with planes in any way in my life. "Truth" that.

Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane.

Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time.

As another person said, a person without much flight experience would not easily fly a 757, much less be able to pull military type movement with it. Your "Truth" is ridiculous.

Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.

Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

I watched loose change and saw the light poles, a couple were damaged. and a couple were not damaged at all. Your "Truth" is misleading.

Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground,
Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.

Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Source

I personally remember that day and I remember the news broadcast saying: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the plane."

Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.

Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source

The spokesman said: "That is not a part of any Rolls-Royce engine with which I am familiar." Rather than meaning as you would have your viewers believe that he was not familiar with the engine at all, this means that of all the engines he was familiar with, this belonged to none. There is a difference in the way you display your information which I hope your readers will acknowledge and watch for.

Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines.

Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source

You say there was debris, and the damage was consistent, however you fail to attack the fact that the pieces were all too small and were carried away by hand, that none of the pieces on the lawn were dirty or burn when the plane supposedly crashed in the lawn and skidded into the building, and you fail to attack the fact that the lawn was undamaged as well as the fact that the engines, the wings, and the tail sections never left any noticable damage on the building, nor were they found on the lawn, only random scraps of metal.

Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.

Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response.

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?

Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane.

So I just debunked half your argument off the top of my head, I'm not going to go into people's history or any of that bullshit. Anyone can say anything about anyone and use their background to back up their opinionated statements. You haven't broken any of the fact of that video. I don't like to believe it myself, but a person must grow up and face facts once in a while.

 
At 03 September, 2006 21:31, Blogger chadtheprole said...

It's time that everyone accepts the truth. It is 100 percent scientifically impossible that two planes disappeared upon impact that that. Plane crashes have always, I repeat always left wreckage. You will never in a million years convince anyone of scientific thinking otherwise. Until the surveillance videos from the Pentagon are released (the ones which actually would have caught the plane in the air) anyone who buys the story fed to us by the news is either scared or extremely ignorant. Come the fuck on, don't you find something strange about the 84 hidden videos from that day? Get over yourself and your fears and realize, THERE WAS NO PLANE AT THE PENTAGON! period. I know individuals who work for the government that know this. Why can't you accept it? I know it's a lot to accept, but buck up and stop making a damn fool of yourself.

 
At 05 September, 2006 00:10, Blogger timholl said...

Some of the things said in the video were very questionable, and like anyone else, I was skeptical about much of the evidence presented. Why? Because I dont want to believe that our government would do such a thing. However, after watching it twice, I realized that there were way too many "facts" that we were fed from the media that just did not fit. Given any fact in the 9/11 story, one can provide evidence for either side of the argument. This is what Loose Change did. They provided numerous amounts of evidence showing their side. But where is the government's? Most will respond to this and say the government does not need to show evidence against their involvement or they'll say that they did already via the media. My questions to our government: Why not show the several local videos of a plane crashing into the pentagon? Why not explain the several explosions inside the towers? This would automatically end the speculation, and this blog. Its just a shame of how many people do not care to know the truth. If enough people cared and made it a priority to our government, maybe we'd find out. That will never happen though, because as a whole our country is much too apathetic.

There are too many coincidences in this story for me or any other person with common sense to believe that our government was not involved in these attacks in some way. However, the question I pose to furture bloggers now is this: If we could prove with certainty that our government was to blame for this, would it really be worth it? In my opinion its a can of worms; I want the people of this country to know the truth of what happened, but the price that we'll pay once the truth is out is probably worth more harm than it is good. Im sure if the government was found guilty, mass hysteria would follow.

 
At 05 September, 2006 16:28, Blogger ChrisSoccr said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 05 September, 2006 16:28, Blogger ChrisSoccr said...

How can you use the 9/11 commission as a source to debunk "Loose Change" when they are the ones who are in question of being corrupt.

Oh yeah, forget about the World Trade Center collapsing after planes hit the very tops of the towers? Where's your explanation for that?

"Loose Change" has definitely opened my eyes. I'm not autmatically accepting everything they say is fact, but I'm certainly asking a lot of questions that have not been answered yet.

 
At 06 September, 2006 00:36, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 06 September, 2006 00:43, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

When you can explain how building seven and the towers fell strait down at virtually freefall speed ( and I think you boys need to read some Isaac Newton) or why building seven fell at all, and just this one discrepancy - Larry Silberstein on camera telling a reporter that he told the fire department to "pull" the building, a well known demolition term for "destroy the building", and the fact that the FEMA report clearly states that they have no idea why building seven collapsed - then I'll listen to anything you have to say. I'll even through you a bone, I won't ask "well if they did 'pull" the building how in the heck were they able to set up the demolition charges in ten hours when it takes every other company in the world two weeks of intense planning to demolish a building. Or why were there jets of debris exploding! from the twin towers thirty to forty stories below where the collapse was taking place. And a mired of other vital fact of which if I know nothing else about 911 I would still believe it was an inside job. And none of which are addressed on your site.

Your site has just been debunked. thankyou

 
At 06 September, 2006 10:02, Blogger bk42 said...

Just one question from all that I am reading? I keep reading about war games that went on a year earlier, who was president then? I believe Clinton was still in office so he would have to be part of the conspiracy also. This is a hard pill to swallow for most folks because they seem intent on blaming it on Bushy boy.

 
At 07 September, 2006 18:07, Blogger fuck you said...

Great fucking research! you fucking dumb azz! your are soooo fucking blind with all tha brain wash from prez dickface bush and way too much american pride to even consiter that your own prez would do sumthin like dat well open your eyez bitch. LOOSE CHANGE IZ THA SHIT HO! prez dickface bush, bush kan lick my hairy choad!
n also he kan lick yo mommaz
nasty hoop azzwell.

 
At 08 September, 2006 10:26, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Yeah and those Pentagon studies also showed the wings neatly folding into the hole in the side of the Pentagon. The NIST grahic in its report shows the tilt of the 'plane' with the left engine kind of blobbed up with the ground. Oops...no gouges in the ground from this tilt then how can they justify the graphic with reality? They can't.

 
At 10 September, 2006 19:07, Blogger black knight said...

Hi. when 9/11 happened i was only 12 years old and when i saw the towers on tv i stopped playing with my friends and just glue to the tv. i am not an american and i do not leave in america, i leave in portugal, but since i remember i always loved the USA and i cant explain why,i love it like i love my own country. everybody that i know ask me why do i love the usa so much and what has the usa of so great for me to love it so much and i never can give an answer.
i have seen losse change and that raise some questions, but the oficcial investigatios also raise questions, i dont know if it was an insid job or not, but i would like to see some questions answered and maybe you can answered for me.
1- If the walls of the pentagon are reinforced, how did the plane crosse all the way to the other side, and if hte wings were not strong enough to go throw the walls st leats the exterior of wall should have some kind of marks?
2-If it was a missile it couldnt have crossed all the way to the other side either.
3-The loose change says that the towers were bring down by bombs putted on the buildings and shows images that they point has bombs, what sond strange for me is if that bombs cause the towers to come down why do you see the blasts when the towers are already cumming down?
4-how can people who have no experience in planes or bombs say that it was a cargo plane or that the noise they heard was bombs, it could just have been something that came down like a wall or something.
5-Why did the FBI toke the pictures that where on the gas station and in the hotel? what do they have to hide
6-If bombs had been put on the towers to make the building cum down, how come the building start crashing from the top, has we see on other controled demolitions the explosive are putted in the bottom and the building falls on it self and the top is the last thing to hit the ground, so how come in the towers was the opposite?
7- how come hte lawn on the pentagon in clean and has no marks of a plane crash? could the plane had hitten the pentagon directly?

I hope you find time to answer my questions and discuss my affirmations. In my country we dont see a lot of people talking about what happed in that day. And by the way i do not like pres. bush, because even if this was an threaten made by Osama, Irak had nothing to do with that, and you have no idea how much it hurts me to see the troops dying there just for a litle more of oil, especially because i have always wanted to be a soldier.

 
At 10 September, 2006 22:27, Blogger Nick'sOnIt said...

Why would our gov't fly a plane into the pentagon in the first place and not even have decent "false" evidence to support it? I know they don't think they're that slick and we are THAT stupid. Wouldn't they just use two planes for the towers rather than four?

So the conspircy goes: two planes would fly into the towers, then one with no one in it will go down in Pennsylvania, and we will use a missle for the fourth but pretend to use a plane"?

Wouldn't you just crash a plane of civilians into the pentagon and another into the ground in Pennsylvania rather than 1. use a missle and 2. re-route and get the passengers off in Ohio rather than risk a hole in the conspiracy? I mean whats a couple hundred more casualties?

Unless....(playing devils advocate here in favor of the conspiracy theorists).... you need holes in order to create so much information on BOTH sides that the truth and lies get so tangled in the web of information that it is hard to figure everything out.

OR...(in favor of the conspiracy theorists again) You put out a video that has some false claims so it doesn't get you in so much trouble but has some good nuggets of information to lead you on the right path to the truth. A way to start asking some questions as some other people wrote what the video does.

Another note is that this is the first site that pops up and that I have read when I searched "loose change debunk". As a library science major and any knowledgeable person knows you have to look at all the information and not the first sight that pops up or just one video claiming its a conspiracy. I am curious as to what the masses (ie bloggers) are saying and what types of info they are linking to. My foremost authority would be searching newspaper articles as they would have a better perspective and better facts. Can't we the public go back in the records and look at the news on the television and in the papers that day (sure we could). I would trust the media and scholars and my own judgements rather than anonymous people on the internet.

I am not taking this videos word as it isn't an authority I can trust but my gut does believe that there is more to the story that we are led to believe.

 
At 10 September, 2006 22:29, Blogger Nick'sOnIt said...

Why would our gov't fly a plane into the pentagon in the first place and not even have decent "false" evidence to support it? I know they don't think they're that slick and we are THAT stupid. Wouldn't they just use two planes for the towers rather than four?

So the conspircy goes: two planes would fly into the towers, then one with no one in it will go down in Pennsylvania, and we will use a missle for the fourth but pretend to use a plane"?

Wouldn't you just crash a plane of civilians into the pentagon and another into the ground in Pennsylvania rather than 1. use a missle and 2. re-route and get the passengers off in Ohio rather than risk a hole in the conspiracy? I mean whats a couple hundred more casualties?

Unless....(playing devils advocate here in favor of the conspiracy theorists).... you need holes in order to create so much information on BOTH sides that the truth and lies get so tangled in the web of information that it is hard to figure everything out.

OR...(in favor of the conspiracy theorists again) You put out a video that has some false claims so it doesn't get you in so much trouble but has some good nuggets of information to lead you on the right path to the truth. A way to start asking some questions as some other people wrote what the video does.

Another note is that this is the first site that pops up and that I have read when I searched "loose change debunk". As a library science major and any knowledgeable person knows you have to look at all the information and not the first sight that pops up or just one video claiming its a conspiracy. I am curious as to what the masses (ie bloggers) are saying and what types of info they are linking to. My foremost authority would be searching newspaper articles as they would have a better perspective and better facts. Can't we the public go back in the records and look at the news on the television and in the papers that day (sure we could). I would trust the media and scholars and my own judgements rather than anonymous people on the internet.

I am not taking this videos word as it isn't an authority I can trust but my gut does believe that there is more to the story that we are led to believe.

 
At 11 September, 2006 00:18, Blogger Jon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11 September, 2006 00:22, Blogger Jon said...

I think that people who refuse to believe official sources but prefer those from other people who obviously have a political axe to grind probably also have an axe to grind.

So, is anyone who believes the 9/11 bombings were an "inside" job pro-Bush, pro-Republican or pro-American (the last for the foreigners on the forum)? If so, speak up. Just curious.

There are people who believe that we didn't go to moon, and others believe that people from the moon pick us up for proctological (i.e., rectal) exams. There are people who believe...sorry I could go on, but just watch the movie (fictional, I might have to add) Conspiracy Theory.

Conspiracy theorists basically believe what they want, discount everything else as corrupt disinformation, then accept uncritically whatever anyone says (like the next door neighbor of a janitor in the White House, for example) that agrees with their beliefs.

It is pointless, and impossible to make points with people who say that evidence is not evidence because they disagree with it.

 
At 11 September, 2006 00:54, Blogger vrwc said...

Jesus H. Christ. Are you folks from the tinhat crowd really this stupid? Do you really have such empty lives that you need to hold on this fantasy? First of all, do you really think that ANY administration in this age of 24/7 news and leaks could really pull of this massive conspiracy? Second, one only need read the Popular Mechanics book debunking all this to see you are just flat wrong. Are there minor things we are not sure of? Of course, in any incident of this magnitude there are going to be things that do not fit neatly into a black and white box. It is the nature of life itself. Scientist do not know exactly how the brain works. But guess what, it does work. We know 95% of the facts of 9/11. The other 5% do not make those wrong, and there will most likely always be some open questions. But guys, 19 Islamo crazies hijacked four planes and flew them into the WTC, the Pentagon and into a field in PA. End of story. Get a life.

 
At 11 September, 2006 03:21, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

When you can explain how building seven and the towers fell strait down at virtually freefall speed ( and I think you boys need to read some Isaac Newton) or why building seven fell at all, and just this one discrepancy - Larry Silberstein on camera telling a reporter that he told the fire department to "pull" the building, a well known demolition term for "destroy the building", and the fact that the FEMA report clearly states that they have no idea why building seven collapsed - then I'll listen to anything you have to say. I'll even through you a bone, I won't ask "well if they did 'pull" the building how in the heck were they able to set up the demolition charges in ten hours when it takes every other company in the world two weeks of intense planning to demolish a building. Or why were there jets of debris exploding! from the twin towers thirty to forty stories below where the collapse was taking place. And a mired of other vital fact of which if I know nothing else about 911 I would still believe it was an inside job. And none of which are addressed on your site.

Your site has just been debunked. thankyou

 
At 11 September, 2006 03:22, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11 September, 2006 04:53, Blogger black knight said...

why wouldnt the building fall straight down on its own, and as you see in the pics and movies from that day you can clearly see that the buildings start to follow right were the planes it. the floors where the planes hit fool down on top of the under floors bringing down the upper floors all against the lowers flowers that have no way to sustain this. do you imagine the amount of people, civilian people that would have to know that history and that would have to lie to that conspiracy be write. how come none of them say anythin yet.

 
At 11 September, 2006 08:11, Blogger Peter Waldvogel said...

This kind of list is a great idea, but you have to do a better job of explaining yourself... you need details, not just claims and assertions.

 
At 11 September, 2006 11:47, Blogger marecha said...

"Since all debris was removed prior to the detailed inspection, the team was unable to determine specifically the level and extent of impact damage in this region of the building."
This was on one of the links that you gave. Why remove all debris before a "detailed inspection"?

 
At 11 September, 2006 12:10, Blogger doomed said...

I have a fealing that we are all screwed.

 
At 11 September, 2006 12:12, Blogger doomed said...

I have a fealing we are all in big trouble soon... I fear for my kids

 
At 11 September, 2006 12:32, Blogger BOOKVILLE said...

You have answered all my questions.

 
At 11 September, 2006 17:33, Blogger Reason said...

10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?

Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source


About the “source”: Very interesting, highly accessible engineering report.

Unfortunately, the inspection team mentioned here was never able to inspect the building structures and wreckage evidence critical for a determination of precisely what struck the Pentagon. The authors of the report take pains to point this out early on,

“By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage. The design team charged with reconstructing the Pentagon was assessing the building and preparations were being made to demolish the area for reconstruction. Consequently, the BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire.”

About the interior of the building, the authors tell us,

“Since all debris was removed prior to the detailed inspection, the team was unable to determine specifically the level and extent of impact damage in this region of the building.”

More important, about the condition of the exterior façade, critical to determining the shape, mass and velocity of the impacting object, the authors of the report write,

“None of the facade in the collapse area was accessible for inspection.”

A report that explores damage that is consistent with a plane crash, but doesn’t have access to damaged areas and structures that are alleged to be inconsistent with a plane strike, regrettably cannot be used to show either that a plane did strike the Pentagon, or that something else, a missile for instance, did not.

Early on the authors mention both eyewitness reports of a plane striking the building, and a frame from a security camera (a picture we are all familiar with, that shows something blurry and light colored moving low). However, they don’t argue that the damage could only be caused by a plane, or that alternative explanations are not in fact superior given the evidence. It is clear that the report does not itself investigate the question of what hit the Pentagon, but assumes the official story and then proceeds in a general way to discuss engineering issues consistent with any number of possible causes for the damage. “Consistent” here simply means “logically compatible with”, not “caused by”.

So, it is inaccurate to assert that this report in anyway “debunks” the proposition that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. This is in no way intended as an argument that something other than a plane was involved, merely as a remark on the correct interpretation of the evidence cited.

It is of interest that the authors note that the impact areas they could observe are significantly smaller then the proposed plane, and they are forced to conjecture about possible explanations for this, none of which is entailed by the evidence. On this critical question the report does not commit itself to any definitive account. Instead the authors write,

“The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building. It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.
In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building.”

This is a hypothesis, a series of possibilities, and on the assumption of a plane, an entirely reasonable one. But it is not itself evidence that a plane struck the Pentagon. Again, the report clearly does not address itself to these issues, but simply assumes them as a context for engineering analysis. It is, regrettably, misleading to portray this report as doing anything else.

 
At 11 September, 2006 19:24, Blogger Jon said...

beginquote===
This is a hypothesis, a series of possibilities, and on the assumption of a plane, an entirely reasonable one. But it is not itself evidence that a plane struck the Pentagon.
===endquote

Of course, the report states at the beginning that they did not have access to some of the physical evidence, so there's no cover-up there. But they did have access to some physical evidence.

In most cases eyewitness accounts are considered evidence -- in fact the American justice system is based on the credibility of eyewitness testimony. There are people who picked plane parts, pilot uniforms and body parts from the damaged part of the Pentagon.

Discounting eyewitness accounts in favor of conspiracy theories that have been debunked (I've looked, and they even cite sources, though, of course, these are only disinformation).

Sure, eyewitnesses can be induced to lie, but so many of them? I'm not buying it.

By the way, my brother was in the Pentagon when it was hit--by a plane, he says...must be lying.

 
At 11 September, 2006 19:37, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

hey black night its called resistance. When a moving object collides with another object the moving object imparts to that other object some (not all - although all is possible but only under the most perfect of circumstances) of its force. the force departed is dependant upon the moving object speed at the time of impact. since we know were the building was damaged (meaning where its weakest spots were) we can make a projection - based on the scientific facts that are stated in the second and third sentences’ of this paragraph - as to how this building should fall. As well, we also know the architectural planning and structure that went in to this building, more scientific information perfect to help us make our projection. This building was built progressively which means that it was stronger at the bottom than it was at the top, but don’t let this fool you that does not mean that this building was buy any means weak at the top.

We know that the lower floors, below where the structures were impacted were structurally sound. the buildings had resisted wind forces greater than that of the force of the impact of the plains since they’re inception, and those forces were directed at those building in there entirety not at just one spot. Now here is where any human being with a brain can destroy the pancake theory. As I said the buildings were progressively built this means that as the top part of the building collapses the collapsing portion of the building continually encounters a greater amount of resistance. Now taking into Account the force of free falling objects or “gravity” which is thirty-two feet per second per second starting at zero from the point of release (which means that for every second that an object falls in earth gravity it falls thirty-two faster than the second before until it reaches terminal velocity; the point at which gravity can no longer increase the objects speed). We can clearly see that starting from zero speed and falling twelve feet (the distance between each floor of the building) before encountering massive resistance at thirty-two feet per second per second, and while encountering progressively stronger resistance as the collapse continued. It is entirely impossible for either building to have collapsed at freefall speed.

So what should have happened? Your question: why shouldn’t the buildings have fallen strait down. As I said in the first paragraph at the time of collapse we know where the weakest spots in the structure were. Now setting aside the enormous amounts of research conducted in the area of why steel building do not collapse strait down due to being structurally unsound and the enormous amounts of research conducted on how to make a building collapse strait down - both ducted mainly by demolition companies and affiliates, thus affirming the need for they’re services lest a structurally unsound building collapse occur on its own in an uncontrolled manner, in effect falling sideways and damaging surrounding buildings - we shall set this enormous amount of scientific fact aside and focus on the fundamental science of why a structurally unsound building does not collapse strait down.

Case in point the twin towers, building two: The first impact occurred at roughly eight-tenths the height of the building this was the impact that struck more center mass and as a result caused more structural damage to the interior of the building. Fires burned in this building for approximately two hours before the collapse occurred. When the collapse occurred the entire top two-tenths of the building fell at free fall speed as though every support in that entire part of the structure had suddenly given way then this portion disappeared into the still standing portion of building below it before the rest of the building began to collapse. Now, if this building had actually spontaneously collapsed according to the laws of physics, the collapse would have begun where the building was the weakest not throughout that entire portion of the building simultaneously. Upon impact jet fuel was spread through out some three floors near the top eight-tenths of the buildings. The building core had a very effective system for preventing air from being sucked up into a fire at any point in the building from the floors below it, and since oxygen could not have traveled through the still structurally sound ceilings and floors in the levels below the fire this fire could not have been fed well from the inside. The hottest part of the fire would have also been the most structurally unsound portion of the building, the point of impact where oxygen would have been the easiest to obtain, the point of impact would have been the hottest spot during the entire time that the building burned further increasing the potential for structural failure at point of impact. And with all the black smoke poring from the point of impact it would not have been easy for oxygen to get into the center of the building. As well the black smoke is a clear indication that the fire was oxygen starved from within. Now, in accordance with the laws of physic a building collapse occurs at the point were the structure is the weakest and that supports do not spontaneously disconnect from each other. What should actually have happened is the point of impact should have collapsed first pulling the still intact support structure (the entire remaining portion of the top two-tenths of the building) with it sideways as it fell. As the rest of the building below the point of impact fell it should have been a very erratic and sporadic collapse and should not have occurred at free fall speed.

Building one: The second impact occurred at approximately three-fourths the height of the building this time the impact did not occur at center mass instead it impacted more toward one of the corners of the building. The most significant difference between these two occurrences (impact one and two) is the amount of weight between point of impact and the top of the building, and the fact that the building was struck at its corner drastically increasing its potential to collapse sideways. At the beginning of the collapse of building one this sideways stile collapse began to manifest. Now this sideways collapse should have continue to fruition. the only possible way that this stile of collapse could have been halted would have been to completely remove the resistance from below this collapsing portion of the structure. This complete removal of resistance did occur as the entire remaining lower portion of the structure began to collapse at the speed of gravity this is a completely impossible occurrence outside of the realm of controlled demolition. Fact: a structurally unsound building dose not collapse cemetericly (which was the case with these buildings) on its own at the speed of gravity, what so ever! A building collapsing on its own collapses erratically and sporadically and not at the speed of gravity.

I could generate hours upon hours of reading concerning this subject but I will continue no further why don’t you study some science and start thinking for yourself instead of having other people do the thinking for you; cause believe it, they are counting on the fact that most people in America don’t know science from a hole in the wall, like a three story hole in the wall if you catch my drift.

 
At 12 September, 2006 00:22, Blogger Reason said...

Hello, Jon,

You seem to be getting ahead of yourself. Almost a missionary.

Yes, we agree, the report, as an engineering report, does not itself address the question of impact source. The point.

But it appears you believe your task here is to defend the official story, not address the short-comings of a particular piece of source material offered on this, a particular, privately generated website. Not the point.

You write,

“In most cases eyewitness accounts are considered evidence -- in fact the American justice system is based on the credibility of eyewitness testimony.”

No, only on their admissibility, subject to critical examination.

The content of the report in question has, as presented, without additional cogent commentary, no relevance to determining what struck the Pentagon. The lesson is merely logical. You have not provided that commentary. Nor is it my porpose to extract an attempt at it from you. My point is about the text as offerred.

In other news,

Greetings to your brother. Did he witness the airplane striking the Pentagon? If so, this and its circumstances are important. If not, should I take it you do not count him among eyewitnesses?

Again, (obviously) none of this commentary constitutes any endorsement of something contrary to the official story. It is, instead, a comment on the use of evidence, unattached to any conclusions as concerns the events of your interest.

Your post illustrates this important concern.

 
At 12 September, 2006 00:41, Blogger Elliott said...

I think that the most compelling evidence that this was not an inside job or conspiracy was the fact that something like Loose Change exists.

We are talking about the United States Government here, the most powerful force on Earth - don't you think that if they were going to plan something like this they would have done a better job? Figured out all the angles? Made sure there were perfect alibis, made sure that all of the mechanics added up, made sure that it didn't look at all like a conspiracy? We have the funds, we have the friends, we have plenty of people willing to literally die to make something like this happen.

Now, I have to say, I'm extremely compelled by the evidence, especially "insidejob"'s comment on here. But isn't my point something to consider? I'm sure if the USA wanted to attack itself and make it look like terrorists did it, they could have made it an airtight case. Don't you?

 
At 12 September, 2006 02:13, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

No I don’t, not on the scale of what they did on nine eleven. you see they aren’t even worried about videos like loose change because they know that the big secrets keep themselves, because they are so incredible that no one will believe them. All they have to do is keep the small secrets, like destroying all of the ruble from nine eleven before it can be investigated.

 
At 12 September, 2006 05:37, Blogger th3n00b said...

Apparently I'm one of the sheeple iving in "constent denial of what really happend." If by "constent denial" you mean, "reality," then yes, that is where I choose to reside. And somebodysgotascrewloose, can you explain why all other qualified research disagrees with your assumptions that planes did not cause the wtc's to "pancake?" Here is some hard, scientific facts for you. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html

 
At 12 September, 2006 11:09, Blogger charlie z said...

A few weeks after 9/11 I boarded a flight from Newark to Atlanta. A woman sat next to me. She asked if I thought our government knew about the attack before it happened. I told her I didn't know. She said her sons are military careerists and that three hours before the attack she received a telephone call from her son in California. He was in his office. He told her to get out of bed, turn on the TV and not to leave her home. She did. More than 3 hours later the towers were hit. She gave me her name, telephone number and address. I have emailed her, and spoken with her. I even sent the New York Times writer this information. No one is interested. Unfortunately, I could tell by her demeanor she was telling the truth. About this film...well, I don't know. But after the FBI memo, the Downing Street memo, I am convinced if no one knew about this then they wanted it to happen...

 
At 12 September, 2006 11:50, Blogger George Bruce said...

This site does serve a useful function. It keeps the moonbats and fruitcakes busy trying to debunk the debunking, and hopefully out of worse mischief.

 
At 12 September, 2006 14:02, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12 September, 2006 14:10, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12 September, 2006 14:15, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12 September, 2006 14:28, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12 September, 2006 14:32, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12 September, 2006 14:51, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

Th3n00b did you actually read the site that you sent me. I don’t think that you did so let educate you.

"Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01."

"In the remainder of this essay, I separate Reynolds' case for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers from his case for the non-involvement of jetliners in the crashes, highlighting errors in both. Whereas Reynolds accurately articulates the evidence for controlled demolition, he makes a series of flawed arguments to support the no-jetliners theories."

The author of this site never disputes the claim that it is more than possible that demolition brought down the towers. Oh, and by the way I never said that planes didn’t hit the twin towers. Why don’t you read instead of just shooting your mouth off jack ass.

 
At 12 September, 2006 15:57, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

David Icke was not the first person to use the term sheeple, just the best. Have a look.

Macmillan English Dictionary

Word of the Week Archive previous word of the week

sheeple noun [plural]
people who are easily persuaded and tend to follow what other people do

‘I hope I can pass on a few thoughts … to encourage people to see that they are living in a conditioned illusion and we can change it any time we want. We can be people and not sheeple.’
(David Icke in a discussion of his new sci-fi channel show, June 2002)

The term sheeple, which first appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 1984, has been used increasingly in the last couple of years due to the enhanced marketing potential afforded by online and satellite channel media. It is often used to describe people who act in direct reaction to saturation advertising, going out and buying the ‘must-have’ fashions and fads of the moment. Sheeple is also used more generally to refer to people who don’t tend to think for themselves but basically follow the crowd or believe what the media tells them. In a June 2002 Guardian newspaper article, it was used in reference to individuals who had taken part in a survey resulting in the claim that ‘four out of five Americans had said they would give up some freedom for greater security’.

The citation at the beginning of the article is from an individual who is a rather extreme believer in alternative ways of thinking, but his use of sheeple is the same, i.e. people should think for themselves, whereas sheeple’s thoughts and reactions are based on what they have been led to believe by others.

Background
The plural noun sheeple is what is technically referred to as a blend, a combination of the words sheep and people. A blend is a new word formed from parts of two (or possibly more) words in such a way that it cannot be further analysed into morphemes (i.e. the smallest meaningful components of words). Other more familiar examples are brunch (breakfast and lunch) and chunnel (channel and tunnel). The concept of a blend (also called a portmanteau word) is nothing new. In Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass, written in 1872, Alice asks Humpty Dumpty to explain the words of a poem and he replies: ‘Well slithy means lithe and slimy. Lithe is the same as active. You see it’s like a portmanteau – there are two meanings packed up into one word.’

 
At 12 September, 2006 19:08, Blogger there's more said...

The one thing that is hard to understand for many is that senior people in the government would be THAT evil to their own people. I just can't believe that Saddam was so important to Bush, Cheney, etc, to do something like this that after all presented many risks to them. However, I feel that Bush probably did not actually know what was going to be done. He is the figurehead after all. CEO's of any corporation don't know much of what goes on. They come and go, but the company lives forever.

Also keep in mind that what governments say and what they think are two different things. Many conspiracy types think that governments are really stupid, but they must be amongst the smartest people out there to get into their positions. Everybody has worked for some boss who is a complete, but crafty asshole. To get to the top of government, or a major defense contractor, you have to be smart. Governments all the time commission accurate estimates of future world trends. They believe what they are paying for because they ask for the straight goods. It's all off the record, so they ask for the truth. They just don't talk about it to the rest of us.

So America knows several things.

1. Peak Oil is either here or coming soon. Maybe Saudi has told their US allies because the implications are huge. If you don't know about Peak Oil, take a look. You will be scared.

2. The US government commmissioned a major internal study that demonstrated that China would within 20 years need to import all the grain that the rest of the world exports. In other words, there will be nothing left for anyone else who needs to import grain to feed their people. Part of this study also predicted that China would go to great lengths to get this grain to keep the lid on their own population problems if there was not enough food to go around.

3 China will become a U.S. competitor for Oil as the supply starts to dwindle.

5, China "owns" the U.S. in some respects due to the fact that they hold so much U.S. debt.

So really smart people understand that we will have a problem with China sooner rather than later. If we get our hands directly on the biggest remaining supplies of Oil (Middle East), that is America's best chance to help dictate the course of this struggle. Why not use the biggest military machine that has ever been made to get the oil before the competition really begins?

So it was considered the ultimate patriotic act to bring down the Towers and create a culture that would politically enable the government to get busy with Middle East invasions without admitting what is really going to happen because of Peak Oil. Sound crazy, but if Peak oil is correct, WTC is nothing. We would soon be fighting with everyone to keep the lights on anyway.

One more point. While everybody worries about fooling the general public, much of 9/11 was designed to help control the Military. While the cult of the President is very strong, eventually the Military will push back if too many troops get killed for nothing. This is happening now, but is not reported much. So the senior brass (and the rank and file), must REALLY believe that we are under attack. 9/11 worked for the past five years. Don't be surprised if there is another biggie (but not in the U.S.) later this year. The military's backbone must be stiffened one more time before Iran.

The government must reckon that in five years, nobody will care about 9/11 anyway because we will be in our life-and-death struggle brought on by Peak Oil. Maybe that's why they don't really care.

 
At 13 September, 2006 04:19, Blogger Poundcakes said...

"Why fly planes into a building THEN detonate explosives? Why not just detonate both buildings at the same time? It would have killed 50x more people."
- Because its not about the number of CASUALTIES, its about making it look REALISTIC. Anyone that sees Loose Change II cannot deny the truth - the government worked with al queida to MAKE 9/11 HAPPEN. Shame the plan backfired and about a million real terrorists became inspired, crawled out of the woodwork and now cause such atrocities as the July 7th bombings. That is, as long as we dont find out in 3 years time that that was a conspiracy too.

 
At 13 September, 2006 20:04, Blogger Russet Shadows said...

Yeah, there's nothing more that needs to be said. This site is what IT folks call a honeypot. Keep the lunatic leftists busy here and they'll be too worn out to cause problems elsewhere. And hey guys, if the US govt is the most powerful organization on earth, why the heck is this blog (and all your comments) still here? Why aren't you being followed around by the men in black? Be careful! They know who you are and it's only a matter of time before they kick in your door and try to shut you up! hahahahah!

 
At 15 September, 2006 00:15, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

russet shadow, I know that it probably hurts you’re your brain to do all that much research so I went and found the zogby poll for you. Avail yourself and read it.

Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals



On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions. I think these numbers show that most New Yorkers are now fed up with the silence, and that politicians trying to exploit 9/11 do so at their peril. The 9/11 case is not closed and New York's questions are not going away."

Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report. How can proposals based on such deficient findings ever make us safe? We think these poll numbers are basically saying, 'Wait just a minute. What about the scores of still outstanding questions? What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7, our air defenses, official accountability, the chain of command on 9/11, the anthrax, insider trading & FBI field probes? There's so much more to this story that we need to know about.' When such a huge majority of New Yorkers want a new investigation, it will be interesting to see how quickly Attorney General Spitzer and our legislators respond."

SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq - do New Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war (51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission - did it answer all the "important questions" (only 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11 - what was its number (28% of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.

On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org. For press info, contact Kyle Hence 212-243-7787 kylehence@earthlink.net

Zogby International conducted interviews of 808 adults chosen at random in New York State. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 8/24/04 through 8/26/04. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

 
At 15 September, 2006 08:17, Blogger Tim Hughes said...

I must say that for #1, you don't prove that he didn't work at the pentagon, just that he started working at AA before loose change says he does. Can one be a pilot and be an outside consultant for the Pentagon? My uncle did it (helicopter).

 
At 18 September, 2006 06:12, Blogger ghostjamison said...

I can't help but point out that this site uses some of the same pictures from Loose Change and simply sites them as "proof that it happened" -- whereas Loose Change has extensively repudiated those claims using the very same images. How can you feel competent that that is a convincing argument? If it is a case of he said / she said I'm afraid Loose Change is much more convincing.

 
At 18 September, 2006 15:48, Blogger gmac said...

on the morning of september 11th 2001. there was more media coverage than nearly any other point in history on one single event (for a 24 hour span). it has been 5 years people. still nothing. im sorry but i do not believe that our government did not have some hand in this.

read up

logically...how long have we all been alive??? i have been cruising along for the near part of 47 years. out of all of the news stories, all of the crashes whether it is a plane, boat, army, etc. i can only count maybe one of these headline news stories not being able to completely show me all evidence of what had occured.

case in point 9/11.

im only speaking of the pentagon and flight 93 in PA

come on people. out of all the years that you have seen horrible accidents on the television. you can make a general conclusion that these catastrophes are believable and/or sustained by visible evidence. there are only 2 things i ask for (and yes, to the victims i am sorry for bringing this up) but i want to see bodies and plane wreckage....thats it!! i live in costa mesa ca and i was up watching full house on kcal 9 of all things before i was off to work. i saw the whole coverage. flipping through channels, browsing what i had seen and trying to make early conclusions.

in your own estimate. logically think about all the plane crashes you have seen over the years. (in fact my father worked for Boeing for nearly 33 years and he has made the same conclusion i have)

being that i am in a family of engineers pilots electricians etc. .....SHOW ME SOME PLANE WRECKAGE!!! i have seen nearly 35+ plane crashes in my day and i can honestly say that all the crashes i have seen have been a plane for starters. it had people for number 2 and there was a legitimate landing crash site. the one time in history where these circumstances are so questionable. our government cant come up with the reason. STILL TO THIS DAY.

 
At 19 September, 2006 01:27, Blogger Spirit said...

You guys rock! Fuck conspiracy theories, they are bullshit 99% of the time. !

 
At 19 September, 2006 18:44, Blogger outside_opinion said...

Alright, i've read all 136 of these comments and now, an hour or so later, have come to this conclusion.

Holy mother of God, what is the deal? Clinton can't get away with an affair in the white house and you people think that Bush was behind all this? HE CANT EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Or that our nations leaders killed off thousands of our own citizens to justify a war?

with all the news coverage at every corner of our country, there's no possible way that a scheme of this size could occur without atleast one of the HUNDREDS of news agencies in the country finding out, or catching wind of something going on at the heart of this horrific event.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before something like LS came out. I thought it very credible the first time i viewed it. Then i watched it again, and again. And the more flaws and lies in it the less credible i found it. It's so easy to manipulate truth, isnt it? And get millions of people behind you.

seriosly all you conspirators have been watching too much X-files. You're so eager to believe a theory like this just like the area 51 hoax. Just because the bastards who make this shit-film claim to have "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE" doesnt sway me. There is such thing as TAKING WORDS OUT OF QUOTES to make it in favor of your side. It's manipulation at it's highest and it is evil to the core. Either we are united and we stand, or divided and we get anarchy like the amatures who shot LS were hoping to create.

fine, call me a "good sheep". i dont care, because if you dont like the way this goverment is, LEAVE THE US AND DONT COME BACK!

 
At 20 September, 2006 14:19, Blogger shadyzz954 said...

At 8:37 PM, screaminmorons said...

screaminmorons said...
"its funny when he links to all those pictures of debris from the "plane" that hit the pentagon. "


how is it funny? Please describe how this is humorous in any way.


screaminmorons said...
"you showed the same pieces of metal several times...."
And your point being? See, trhe metal was shown MULTIPLE times because it's called PROVING A POINT and DISPROVING the BS in Loose Stools, I mean, Loose Change.



screaminmorons said...
and loose change never said there was not debris....they said there was some debris...

Loose Change said there was NO DEBRIS FROM AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET. Rather it was from a Cruise Missile of an old, retired Fighter Jet.


Also, Loose Change uses a plane crash that hit a light pole as an example, yet they say that the wing ripped off upon IMPACT into the GROUND, not into the lightpole, but if you listen to the wording CLEARLY they are trying to make it sound (to idiots like yourself) that the wing ripped off from the lightpole.

Let's see, I work with the state going from site to site as a civil engineer, do you know what a civil engineer does? Yes, I have experience with LIGHTPOLES! They are made from THIN pliable steel or aluminum and are MADE TO BREAK APART UPON IMPACT, the EXACT same metals are used in ANY commercial lightpole, they are made to break apart in the event that an object like a car on a highway hits one or a car goes out of control onto the property of an institution that has lightpoles and hits any of them.

If they did not break apart and a car hit one, SERIOUS injury and death is most likely to occur.

I've seen accidents where cars traveling at 60 mph QUICKLY remove from their base these poles and bend the hell out of them, imagine an airplane weighing over 1000 tons moving at over 500 mph. DUH!


screaminmorons said...
"and there was...but you mean to tell me and everyone that the plane was completely demolished?"

A plane traveling at 500+ mph hits the most fortified building on the planet at almost a direct front-end collision... no, it didn't COMPLETELY VANISH, most of it VANISHED INTO THE PENTAGON, and tell us, when did you see photos from INSIDE the Pentagon on that day?

screaminmorons said...
"except a few pieces...and that it left a round hole...."

See above. And DUMBASS, the fuselage of any commercial plane is shaped like that of a CIRCLE when you view it from the front.


screaminmorons said...
"I have seen (as well as everyone here) plane wreckage..."

You've ONLY seen wreckage when it was a sliding hit, you have never seen wreckage when it went DIRECTLY into the side of a building, THAT is why you get the scattering you simpleton. A direct front-end hit would produce EXPONENTIALLY different crash-pattern results than a plane which just drops from the sky continuing with some form of forward motion.

I was a personal spectator to a major crash in the late 70's in Chicago where I saw a DC come down as I was on the highway, it was the typical kind of crash you see on the news, and MOST of the plane was demolished aside from what would and could not burn and it wasn't traveling at even half the speed of the plane which hit the Pentagon.


screaminmorons said...
"YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT THERE ARE FIVE PIECES OF METAL!?! thats it??? are you really taht delusional?"

Who said there was only 5 pieces? None of us said that, nobody in the government ever said that, it must have been the guys who made loose change, so you're calling them delusional and yet you believe them, that makes you a fucking imbecile!




screaminmorons said...
"every plane wreckage i have seen has been scattered everywhere. and just like in loose change, there is usually engines, tail section, wings, bodies...and countless other things..."

EVERY?? Really? What about a plane crash in the water, most of it sinks, so tell us where EVERYWHERE is that this debris scatters? Oh wait, you said "every plane wreckage I HAVE SEEN..." and again I state that you obviously have never seen a plane run directly into a building, let alone one as fortified as the Pentagon.

I'll make this one easy for you, idiot... look at the plane fly into the towers, you see the big fucking circle where the fuselage hit? THAT IS CALLED A PLANE! The wings only penetrated because the walls were GLASS, not the THICK FORTIFIED concrete of the Pentagon with which the wings in that one ripped to pieces upon impact and the rest of the plane went INSIDE because of the basic laws of motion, what, did you expect the plane to bounce off like a superball?

you've been watching too much Japanimation you cretin!



screaminmorons said...
"you are the reason this government is succeding and working...good job voting on bush"

That's all you have to say with regard to YOUR thoughts on all of this? Wow, we're LUCKY that people like you are but our plumbers and pool cleaners and not in a higher more "responsible" societal role with people's lives in your hands.


screaminmorons said...
"YOU FUCKIN MORON"

You must be staring in the mirror again as you type that, right!

 
At 20 September, 2006 16:59, Blogger shadyzz954 said...

reply to screaminmorons...

screaminmorons said...
"its funny when he links to all those pictures of debris from the "plane" that hit the pentagon. "



how is it funny? Please describe how this is humorous in any way.


screaminmorons said...
"you showed the same pieces of metal several times...."


And your point being? See, trhe metal was shown MULTIPLE times because it's called PROVING A POINT and DISPROVING the BS in Loose Stools, I mean, Loose Change.



screaminmorons said...
and loose change never said there was not debris....they said there was some debris...


Loose Change said there was NO DEBRIS FROM AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET. Rather it was from a Cruise Missile of an old, retired Fighter Jet.

Also, Loose Change uses a plane crash that hit a light pole as an example, yet they say that the wing ripped off upon IMPACT into the GROUND, not into the lightpole, but if you listen to the wording CLEARLY they are trying to make it sound (to idiots like yourself) that the wing ripped off from the lightpole.

Let's see, I work with the state going from site to site as a civil engineer, do you know what a civil engineer does? Yes, I have experience with LIGHTPOLES! They are made from THIN pliable steel or aluminum and are MADE TO BREAK APART UPON IMPACT, the EXACT same metals are used in ANY commercial lightpole, they are made to break apart in the event that an object like a car on a highway hits one or a car goes out of control onto the property of an institution that has lightpoles and hits any of them.

If they did not break apart and a car hit one, SERIOUS injury and death is most likely to occur.

I've seen accidents where cars traveling at 60 mph QUICKLY remove from their base these poles and bend the hell out of them, imagine an airplane weighing over 1000 tons moving at over 500 mph. DUH!


screaminmorons said...
"and there was...but you mean to tell me and everyone that the plane was completely demolished?"


A plane traveling at 500+ mph hits the most fortified building on the planet at almost a direct front-end collision... no, it didn't COMPLETELY VANISH, most of it VANISHED INTO THE PENTAGON, and tell us, when did you see photos from INSIDE the Pentagon on that day?

screaminmorons said...
"except a few pieces...and that it left a round hole...."


See above. And DUMBASS, the fuselage of any commercial plane is shaped like that of a CIRCLE when you view it from the front.


screaminmorons said...
"I have seen (as well as everyone here) plane wreckage..."


You've ONLY seen wreckage when it was a sliding hit, you have never seen wreckage when it went DIRECTLY into the side of a building, THAT is why you get the scattering you simpleton. A direct front-end hit would produce EXPONENTIALLY different crash-pattern results than a plane which just drops from the sky continuing with some form of forward motion.

I was a personal spectator to a major crash in the late 70's in Chicago where I saw a DC come down as I was on the highway, it was the typical kind of crash you see on the news, and MOST of the plane was demolished aside from what would and could not burn and it wasn't traveling at even half the speed of the plane which hit the Pentagon.


screaminmorons said...
"YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT THERE ARE FIVE PIECES OF METAL!?! thats it??? are you really taht delusional?"


Who said there was only 5 pieces? None of us said that, nobody in the government ever said that, it must have been the guys who made loose change, so you're calling them delusional and yet you believe them, that makes you a fucking imbecile!




screaminmorons said...
"every plane wreckage i have seen has been scattered everywhere. and just like in loose change, there is usually engines, tail section, wings, bodies...and countless other things..."


EVERY?? Really? What about a plane crash in the water, most of it sinks, so tell us where EVERYWHERE is that this debris scatters? Oh wait, you said "every plane wreckage I HAVE SEEN..." and again I state that you obviously have never seen a plane run directly into a building, let alone one as fortified as the Pentagon.

I'll make this one easy for you, idiot... look at the plane fly into the towers, you see the big fucking circle where the fuselage hit? THAT IS CALLED A PLANE! The wings only penetrated because the walls were GLASS, not the THICK FORTIFIED concrete of the Pentagon with which the wings in that one ripped to pieces upon impact and the rest of the plane went INSIDE because of the basic laws of motion, what, did you expect the plane to bounce off like a superball?

you've been watching too much Japanimation you cretin!



screaminmorons said...
"you are the reason this government is succeding and working...good job voting on bush"


That's all you have to say with regard to YOUR thoughts on all of this? Wow, we're LUCKY that people like you are but our plumbers and pool cleaners and not in a higher more "responsible" societal role with people's lives in your hands.


screaminmorons said...
"YOU FUCKIN MORON"


You must be staring in the mirror again as you type that, right!



See, the problem is that you can't make an idiot realize he/she is an idiot, because then they would no longer be an idiot, you'd be breaking some fundamental rule of physics on that one and might cause the lower-educated idiot to suffer an aneurism. So they go on and on, trying to show that they have some deeper form of intellectual realization yet they ignore SIMPLE FACTS and go solely upon here-say.

 
At 21 September, 2006 04:10, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

shadyzz945
A great man once said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and I’ve got to say that you’re sounding pretty hostile there budy.

Your comment: “EVERY?? Really? What about a plane crash in the water, most of it sinks, so tell us where EVERYWHERE is that this debris scatters? Oh wait, you said "every plane wreckage I HAVE SEEN..." and again I state that you obviously have never seen a plane run directly into a building, let alone one as fortified as the Pentagon.”

This comment is laughable.

First off What in the world do plains crashing in water have to do with anything. What about plane crashes into the sides of mountains. And yes I have seen photographs of wreckages from plane crashes into the sides of mountains. Believe it, there is a lot of shit left over.

As for the “you obviously have never seen a plane run directly into a building, let alone one as fortified as the Pentagon.” you are right the pentagon was extremely fortified. So fortified in fact that what ever hit it hardly damaged the façade of the building and left a sixteen foot diameter hole in the front of the building before the building finally collapsed due to fire and pore remaining structural integrity. And yes I have seen the photographs.

Now let’s just be critical about this. a plane “weighing over 1000 tons moving at over 500 mph.” slams in to the pentagon leaving comparatively little other structural damage to the building other than a sixteen foot diameter hole in its façade, and leaving no entry point for the wings (i.e. concrete portions of the structure between were windows ones were are visibly still intact), and yes I have seen the photographs. Now some might argue that the wings of the plane, filled with fuel, exploded upon impact leaveing little debris, like a grenade, but unlike a grenade the wings of a plane are not made out of high carbon steel, which shatters. They are made out of aluminum which is very pliable, so there should have been a massive amount of wing debris left over and since, obviously, the majority of it could not have entered the pentagon, there should have been huge twisted pieces of aluminum scattered all around the front of the pentagon.

Now five hundred mph, that’s about as fast as a bullet travels, around seven hundred feet per second. Tell me, have you ever fired a gun at a concrete slab. Well I have, and let me tell ya, that bullet bounced off that concrete like a fuckin “superball,” in fact the ricochet came so close to our position that my friend and I (especially my friend who was standing behind me and a little to the left) heard the thing wiz past us (came closer to my friend. Scared the shit out of him.) afterward my friend and I went up to the slab to see the damage. It was about an eight inch diameter impact crater, and that was just from a bullet that was about three quarters of an inch wide and only weighed a few ounces. And now you’re trying to convince me that a plane moving at the speed of a bullet and weighing over one thousand tons leaves a sixteen foot hole. I don’t think so. It would have level that front section of the pentagon. If you don’t believe me about the bullet give it a try.

Your comment: “The wings only penetrated because the walls were GLASS, not the THICK FORTIFIED concrete of the Pentagon.” The walls were not glass they were glass housed in a steel structure by steel beams of which the wings of the plane cut through like butter. Now call me bold here, but I think that solid steel is a little stronger than steel reinforced concrete.

Your comment: “no, no, it didn't COMPLETELY VANISH, most of it VANISHED INTO THE PENTAGON, and tell us, when did you see photos from INSIDE the Pentagon on that day?”

I have seen photographs from inside the collapsed portion of the pentagon after the fires were put out, and there is nothing even remotely resembling the amount of plane wreckage that should be there,In fact I didn’t see one piece of ruble that even remotely resembled plane wreckage. At the moment I don’t recall exactly were I saw these photographs (cant seem to recall it among the volumes of information that I have taken in concerning 911) but if you really want to see them I’m sure that I can figure out were I saw them and let you know.

Your comment: Yes, I have experience with LIGHTPOLES! They are made from THIN pliable steel or aluminum and are MADE TO BREAK APART UPON IMPACT, the EXACT same metals are used in ANY commercial lightpole, they are made to break apart in the event that an object like a car on a highway hits one or a car goes out of control onto the property of an institution that has lightpoles and hits any of them. I've seen accidents where cars traveling at 60 mph QUICKLY remove from their base these poles and bend the hell out of them, imagine an airplane weighing over 1000 tons moving at over 500 mph. DUH!”

Just bare with me for a second. Have you ever seen someone do the table cloth trick. You know, were a person quickly removes a table cloth from underneath an entire diner setting, flower vases and all, and nothing falls. Well, I think that the biggest point the loose change people are trying to make on this light post thing is that regardless of how easy those poles are to remove from the ground, a few tons of wing aerodynamically shaped like a knife moving at bullet speeds should have cut those poles in half instantly upon impact. Believe it, there’s a lot of difference between impacts at sixty mph and five hundred mph.

Your comment: “Who said there was only 5 pieces? None of us said that, nobody in the government ever said that, it must have been the guys who made loose change, so you're calling them delusional and yet you believe them, that makes you a fucking imbecile!

You obviously have not seen the pictures of the pentagon before it collapsed. I assure you that there is nothing on the pentagon lawn that resembles plane wreckage. If you don’t believe me search for the photographs and look for yourself. Remember airplanes “are made from THIN pliable aluminum” which bends and does not shatter.

I think that that pretty much covers your post. In the future, instead of picking on one of these blogers who doesn’t really say much, why don’t you pick on some of the other people on this blog who are really asking some important questions, or is “That all you have to say with regard to YOUR thoughts on all of this.

“Wow, we're LUCKY that people like you are but our” city lightpost installers “and not in a higher more "responsible" societal role with people's lives in your hands.”

I’m not even going to comment on your last paragraph because I think that it all ready speaks volumes as to what kind of person you are.

 
At 21 September, 2006 05:47, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

outside_opinion

The entire idea behind the United States of America (i.e. our constitution) is that Americans have the right to decent against the government. And why is that? Because the founders of our government knew how evil and sadistic governments can become. If you don’t think that things like a government destroying its own buildings and blaming it on other people can be done because to many people would find out about it. why don’t you take a look at what Hitler did to his own countries ricestag (not sure if that’s how you spell it) building in order to wip his population in to a fervor against the Jews, and this happened before the third Reich came in to power. In fact, it was one of the biggest reasons the people of Germany handed over there freedoms in favor of a military police state so that there government could protect them from terrorism, and now we see the same thing happening in our own country with the patriot act. Just because the name of our country is the United States of America does not mean that the same things that happened in Germany and, if you read a little history, every government that has ever existed, cannot happen here. That is the exact reason the authors of our constitution wrote it the way they did, so that if our government ever got out of line we the people not only have the right to stand up against our government but the reasonability to do so.

Also, forty million dollars was spent to investigate Clinton. Only six hundred thousand dollars was spent to investigate 911 doesn’t just that right there tell you that something is wrong here. Is the sex life of one of our presidents more important than an attack on our nation.

One more thing. Do you know anything about the people who own the corporations that produce our news media. The media is not an independent entity from our government especially in matters like 911. They work in unison with the government who issues the story they want to tell the American people and our media faithfully reports it. If you don’t know about the people who own the corporations that are responsible for our media you should really look into them and were there loyalties reside. It really is some scary stuff. Because what do you do if you are a reporter and you want to report on some thing, but when you submit it to your boss he says “we cant run this story we’d get reamed, and they would definitely fire you and they would probably fire me to.” What do you do?

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:57, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

shadyzz945

I thought that one thousand tons was quite a bit for a plane to weigh so I looked it up these types of planes only weigh around one hundred tons fully loaded, but I still stand by my clam that this kind of weight ( two hundred thousand pounds even a hundred and fifty) moving at five hundred mph would have leveled the front sections of the pentagon. One thousand tons was just bonus time.

 
At 24 September, 2006 09:23, Blogger Sweetbwaoy said...

Your blog is soooo suspect. I clicked the links to your 'sources'. They are soooo weak. The weakest link is the one that was supposed to lead me to the source of evidence proving when the pilot worked for American Airlines. I was expecting to see a photocopy of an official document, instead you send me to a website for Arlinton Cemetery. What's the matter with you??

 
At 27 September, 2006 09:35, Blogger REYKWON36 said...

None of the alleged "lies" in loose change expressed here are enough to debunk the video's claim that 9-11 was a horrific act on the part of the US gvmnt against it's own people for political & financial advancements. There are plenty of concrete examples still remaining to support a conspiracy despite the poor examples of miss quotes and erroneous information alleged on this site. Why were the surveilance tapes confiscated from nearby businesses which had perfect vantage points on the pentagon attack immediately afterwards? Why did we get an unclear, behind the pentagon wall video release of the pentagon crash, NOT SHOWING A PLANE!?! AND YEARS later at that! Why was the Osama confession video clearly faked?! You think that Nick Berg video was real too? HAHA!! Who directed that anyway? Why did WTC7 collapse hours later without behind hit? You think it was falling DEBRIS!? Give me a break! This site is a pathetic attempt to "debunk" the true, sinister intentions and actions of the US government. It's actually defeating it's on purpose as I'm noticing that it's actually proving the points of those who know the truth and fueling the fires of the revoution even more.

 
At 27 September, 2006 15:01, Blogger proof98 said...

if u say loose change is a lie then how come there are legitamite question that need to be answerd by the goverment.there are to many coincidense in the 911 but if what u say is true were is ur proof how come they only show 2 camra views on the pentagon when there are lots of camars around the pentagon if what loose change says and its a lie all they have to do is show the plane hit the pentagon and theres a lot more other examples.

 
At 27 September, 2006 15:01, Blogger proof98 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 02 October, 2006 16:32, Blogger onevoice said...

I've just spent about 8 hours reading verious sites related to this issue, one of which is very informative and I believe, linked in one of the above posts. I'll post it again here though.

www.911review.com

I strongly recommend reading it as it serves to very accurately and impartially cleans up many if not all of the bogus claims made in 'loose change'

Someone above made a dual claim that 1. it would be impossible for the US government to pull this off without the media, or someone, finding out and 2. that the US government would not willfully attack it's own people. I do not agree with either of these views, I belive that in theory this attack could have been co-ordinated by literally a handful of people in top level positions within the government, the heirarchical nature of organisations like the military enabling aspects of the operation to be performed by people who had no idea of the overall aims of their superiors. secondly I have no doubt that in reality the government has very little or no care for the average american citizen and would readily sacrifice them on the altar of corperate profit and the quest for world domination. also in the same post he mentions that having watched LS many times he discovered more and more lies. This is one of the problems with LS it often focuses on elements of the theories which are either difficult to substanciate or highly implausible, the biggest offenders being 1. the 'pod' on the planes in the WTC attacks/ pre-impact flashed (removed in version 2 of LS) 2. the 'no plane' hoax regarding the pentagon and 3. the theory regarding the crash of flight 93. All of these theories upon research end up seeming, at best, highly unlikely and the incorporation of the hoax conspiracies only serves to bury the more likely truths in these cases. The second major problem with using these hoax conspiracies is it enables people like the above poster to reject all of the other good evidence which is also included in LS. Misinformation can be a dangerous thing.

In referece to this site I think much of the critique is pretty bogus and the adopted practice of sourcing your own website is really quite dumb. However I'm glad I was inspired to question the LS film and did not take it at face value.

Another point springs to mind, where is the line the US government cannot cross in terms preserving it's own stability? An above blogger (russet shadows) states that if the American government is so powerful,how come we can still say all these things, and have a site like this active? well there seems to be a reasonable explanation to this since the foundations of the US were laid a great many hard fought battles have been which have given the citizens the US the levels of personal freedom and free speech which are enjoyed today (if modifed slightly by the patriot act) This is in direct contrast to, say, China, where it is, and has been, the norm for the state to control the most basic fundamentals of your life: where you can live, what you eat, where you work and what exactly you can and cannot talk about. I believe that the second these rights were actually seriously taken away in the manner of the manner described then american would truly be on a direct course with anarchy. The administration NEEDS to continue the public facade that the American people are the most free peoples on earth if they are going to maintain their cloak of authenticity, any decenting voices can easily be marginalised and called into ill-repute using the societal structures which are long established and very effective.

To sum up, when I woke up this morning I thought 9/11 was committed by islamic terrorists. Now I am 100% convinced that it was designed and executed by a very small select group of very high ranking members of the US government. seeing the obviously fake 'confession' tape of Osama Bin Laden has only cemented this feeling in my mind.

These are certainly dark days for the human race.

 
At 21 October, 2006 13:23, Blogger Praetorian said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 October, 2006 13:26, Blogger Praetorian said...

just saw LC2. A friend encouraged me to watch it.

My first point: When my friend suggested this he started with "Do you honestly believe a small group of Islamist terrorists had the means to pull off the most destructive aggressive non-military event in living memory?" A question put in different ways in LC

The problem with that question is that it looks at the end and tries to use it to discredit the means.

All the question really needs to ask is - "is it possible for a team of men to hijack a plane?” If your answer to that is 'yes' - then you have to acknowledge that, if organized, more than one team can hijack multiple planes and, once hijacked, the new pilots can fly those planes into whatever they want.

Point 2: If 9/11 had never happened and someone had asked you "Do you think a skyscraper could collapse if it took a direct hit from a BIG plane traveling at FULL SPEED?" Are you seriously telling me you'd have said "no"? Come on!! To say that no other steel framed structure has ever collapsed because of fire before and offering that as evidence of demolition is like saying the Zeebrugge ferry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald_of_Free_Enterprise) must have been deliberately capsized because no other ferry leaving port with bow doors open ever capsized before it.

The towers may have been built to withstand air impacts - but these weren't lost planes accidentally hitting the buildings (like the plane that hit the Empire State) - these were planes aimed at the buildings traveling at top speed.

Do you believe that a car traveling at 30mph will do as much damage to a building as one traveling at 90mph? - And on that point, do you believe that a plane that crash lands will leave the same sort of debris as planes that crash at maximum speed?

I'm not saying that I do or don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy - but it feels very much like both sides are acting with huge amounts of bias - which is making it hard to come to a sensible decision. And, in my opinion - many of the things mentioned in LC2 just don't seem to ring true and it feels more like they're reaching.

Someone asked "What's wrong with asking questions?" Nothing. But these are accusations - not questions. Now let me ask you: If your government falls because of 9/11 and the subsequent accusations against the US government of murder - and if, in fact, they had nothing to do with it - how will you feel? How would you feel if people were allowed to make any claim they wanted against you and go unchallenged?

So the government put gag-orders on people and pressure people to not continue with their stories. Isn't it just possible that they do that in the interests of national security?

To finish - I belong to an organization that was attacked by the BBC's Panorama program a few years ago. That has nothing to do with this - except to say that the program looked extremely convincing - yet I knew (I don't mean I "believed" - I mean I knew) that the program's premise was faulty and the evidence looked so strong simply because they only showed the evidence that supported their claims. They were careful not to directly lie - but they said plenty of things that would have allowed their audience to come to a wrong conclusion. They implied that we weren't forthcoming with information they'd requested from us - but this was totally misleading - we'd sent a long reply explaining our position, answering each question one by one, and explaining why we couldn't answer some of there questions (when that was the case).

They aired their show - and since then it is up the public to judge for themselves whether we were guilty as charge or not - some do, some don't and some are undecided. And that's the problem with being able to say just what you want to say - because we weren't guilty.

Unanswered questions don't mean conspiracy. An organization can have a 101 legitimate reasons why it won't answer questions. It can also have illegitimate reasons why it wont - perhaps to cover up some illegal activity. But even in that case that activity may not be related to the one for which they are eventually accused.

So don't just listen to this because it sounds like it could be true - investigate both sides of the story and be open minded as far as you possibly can be.

 
At 25 October, 2006 16:36, Blogger Jesse said...

SGASL is a raging idiot with no grasp on reality. This is how your government controls you people. by making you chase your tail around. Take a look at some real issues, and use that intellect for something worthwhile. You think that because "question" it makes you noble don't you. I can't stand you and people like you. You give legitimate question askers a bad name.

 
At 26 October, 2006 09:55, Blogger V3ngeance said...

O.k O.k, lets look at the reaction of this blog, I can't tell when these were all written, so I have no way of knowing if this will be ever be read!

But! It seems as if most people do not believe the story told by the Government (Complain, demonstraight in the streets, do what you have to get this case reopened!)

Democracies, i.e you and I, don't generally like war and death, it’s only when we think we are threatened that we strike out.

Let’s look at some FACTS!

It’s a fact that the American administration has lied to its people before (A credit to the people that they have to lie to do the things they do)

Take the Vietnam War, Thousands of solders died, hundred of thousands of civilians killed or wounded, all because a North Vietnam patrol boats attacked an America Destroyer (This was the justification for getting "Troops on the ground", this was an outright LIE! This event never happened.

During the Kennedy administration, some idiot came up with an idea to blow up a plane over Cuba and accuse them of doing it for a pre-text of war.....luckily President Kenndy was horrified, and sacked him….

Why is it so hard for some people to believe that the Government can lie...they are only human after all.

I watched an interview with a Bush administration spokesmen, and he said "If we have to remove some liberties to make life secure, then so be it" I'd like to quote someone else now, Mr Eisenhower "A country that gives up its liberties for security, deserves none and gets neither!"

My honest believe is that a (Ohh dare I say it) a Secret society wants to control us, make us fear them, for some twisted end result....I fear for the children of the future....

Having said that, Mother Nature may change things…..I hope so.

 
At 26 October, 2006 09:55, Blogger V3ngeance said...

O.k O.k, lets look at the reaction of this blog, I can't tell when these were all written, so I have no way of knowing if this will be ever be read!

But! It seems as if most people do not believe the story told by the Government (Complain, demonstraight in the streets, do what you have to get this case reopened!)

Democracies, i.e you and I, don't generally like war and death, it’s only when we think we are threatened that we strike out.

Let’s look at some FACTS!

It’s a fact that the American administration has lied to its people before (A credit to the people that they have to lie to do the things they do)

Take the Vietnam War, Thousands of solders died, hundred of thousands of civilians killed or wounded, all because a North Vietnam patrol boats attacked an America Destroyer (This was the justification for getting "Troops on the ground", this was an outright LIE! This event never happened.

During the Kennedy administration, some idiot came up with an idea to blow up a plane over Cuba and accuse them of doing it for a pre-text of war.....luckily President Kenndy was horrified, and sacked him….

Why is it so hard for some people to believe that the Government can lie...they are only human after all.

I watched an interview with a Bush administration spokesmen, and he said "If we have to remove some liberties to make life secure, then so be it" I'd like to quote someone else now, Mr Eisenhower "A country that gives up its liberties for security, deserves none and gets neither!"

My honest believe is that a (Ohh dare I say it) a Secret society wants to control us, make us fear them, for some twisted end result....I fear for the children of the future....

Having said that, Mother Nature may change things…..I hope so.

 
At 28 October, 2006 13:53, Blogger insidejob said...

http://belowgroundsurface.org

 
At 05 November, 2006 21:54, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 05 November, 2006 21:57, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

!!!!!!!!!Praetorian!!!!!!!!!

I enjoyed your post. it was level headed unlike some of the “deniers” that post on this site. But the simple fact is (and I hope you don’t take this hard because I want you to read what I have to say) that nothing in your post has anything to with the major points of argument concerning this debate the points of argument which have spawned this debate and the entire movement for truth concerning 9/11.

I will begin with your strongest point

In your post you said

Point 2: If 9/11 had never happened and someone had asked you "Do you think a skyscraper could collapse if it took a direct hit from a BIG plane traveling at FULL SPEED?" Are you seriously telling me you'd have said "no"? Come on!!

First of all, having watched loose change, I am sure that you know about building #7 and if not maybe I can change your mind right here on this point alone. Building #7 was a monster among steel framed structures. It is well known that 7 had some of the largest steel frame supports relative to its size of any other building on the planet. But regardless of that, it was a steel framed structure and previous to 9/11 no steel structure in the world has collapsed due to fire. It was not struck by a plain on 9/11 and no pieces of debris of substantial size fell on to the building during the collapse of trade 1&2. In addition a fact that is not widely used in this debate, building 7 was shielded by buildings 4, 5, & 6 from flying debris at ground level. As was reported, and is documented this building only had moderate fires in it; unlike buildings 5&6 which were raging torches, as well 5&6 took the brunt of the force from the collapse of trade 1&2. 5&6 were only some one hundred feet away from trade 1&2; where as, building 7 was three hundred feet away! Amazingly, a substantial portion of buildings 5&6 actually survived the fires and subsequent collapse of trade 1&2. As equally amazing building 7 did not. It collapsed in its entirety, strait down, into its own foot print and in six point four second almost the calculated time it would take an object to reach the ground if you were to drop it from the top of building 7 coming only a couple of points shy. This phenomenon (the collapse of building 7) is the single most inconsistent event concerning 9/11 which clashes with the governments official story in its entirety, because out side of the realm of controlled demolition the phenomena that occurred during the collapse of building seven are entirely impossible. So, how dose the official story deal with this. Well, the 9/11 commission ignores building 7 all together and the F.E.M.A report says “ at this time the collapse of building 7 remains a mystery. Wow, I’m sorry but after seeing the footage of the collapse of building 7 it seems quite evident what caused its collapse. Not to mention the fact that in an inter view with Larry Silverstine ( the lease holder for the tread complex) shortly after 9/11 Larry seemed to let the cat out of the bag. Recounting his conversation with a fire chef “well we’ve had such a loss of life to today, maybe the best thing to do would be to pull it, and they made that decision and then we watched the building come down.”. The term pull is a well known term or slang for “demolish the building”. Now, 9/11 deniers will tell you that what Larry was referring to was the evacuation of fire fighters inside of 7 but what they will fail to tell you is that the evacuation of the fire fighters in 7 was conducted at around 10:00 am and that building 7 did not collapse until later that afternoon around five or six I think where as the time frame of what Larry says seems to be happening very quickly. As well, it seems clear to me what Larry is talking about. The reason why I and every other “truther” out there are harping on this subject so much is because it is quite clear what caused building 7 to collapse and the demolition of a steel frame building cannot be conducted in nine days let alone nine hours. To conduct the demolition of a building such as 7 it takes two too six weeks of intense calculations on where to place the explosives throughout the structure. This single fact is proof that there is a conspiracy. And that is all I have to say on that subject except to say that there is a lot of information out there concerning 9/11 I would suggest that you go to www.video.google.com and search 911 and watch as many videos as you can stand to watch. most of them are full length for free. I would suggest watching “911 Mysteries” and “911 Eye Witness”

There was one more thing in your post that I was concerned about. In your post you said several thing that you linked together as a conclusion and I do not agree with that conclusion, though I hope that you will continue to read as I am about to conclude my post after quoting you on the things that I disagree with.

“I'm not saying that I do or don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy - but it feels very much like both sides are acting with huge amounts of bias - which is making it hard to come to a sensible decision. And, in my opinion - many of the things mentioned in LC2 just don't seem to ring true and it feels more like they're reaching.”

I have only one thing to say to rebut this. There are many other videos out there that are a lot better than loose change. Do some reach. Don’t let the characteristics of one video define you entire out look on this subject.

“Someone asked "What's wrong with asking questions?" Nothing. But these are accusations - not questions. Now let me ask you: If your government falls because of 9/11 and the subsequent accusations against the US government of murder - and if, in fact, they had nothing to do with it - how will you feel? How would you feel if people were allowed to make any claim they wanted against you and go unchallenged?”

I believe that the citizens of the united states of America are entitled to be told the truth by there government no mater what the circumstance. Doesn’t the fact that the government is dancing around and manipulating the truth concerning this mater constitute the assertion that they are involved in some wrong doings. And as citizens of the united states of America bound together by this great nations constitution (of the people, by the people, and for the people) does that not mean that we (all of us) have the responsibility to ensure that our nations government does no wrong - or at least as little wrong as we can possibly manage.

“Unanswered questions don't mean conspiracy. An organization can have a 101 legitimate reasons why it won't answer questions. It can also have illegitimate reasons why it wont - perhaps to cover up some illegal activity. But even in that case that activity may not be related to the one for which they are eventually accused.

I’m sorry but what possible legitimate reasons could they have for covering up (like destroying debris from the collapse of the trade center complex before any one could do an independent investigation, or seizing video footage from around the Pentagon, and completely ignoring things like the collapse of building 7 as well as completely distorting the science of the manner in which buildings collapse concerning trade 1&2. if there was no wrong done here than what possible harm could be brought about by telling the truth. And lets not forget that this is not some corporation. these people work for us not the other way around

In response to your post in its entirety I have only one other thing to say and it is in your own words “don't just listen to this because it sounds like it could be true - investigate both sides of the story and be open minded as far as you possibly can be.” I have done so. As citizens of the united states we are all responsible for following this request in matters that concern our government. Have you.

In concluding this post I would like to repost one of my previous posts. The post is about trade 1&2 and why we must question the circumstances of there collapse. When I first posted it I was kind of distracted and I really messed up the beginning of it, and I’ve been wanting to repost it but thought that I should wait for the right time to do so. I hope that you will read my post right below this one. As well I would like you to know that I am not some uneducated fool my grand father was core of engineers WW II, my father worked on helicopters for the marine core for twenty years and I am attending university where I major in physics. I enjoyed reading your post and I hope you’ve enjoyed reading mine.

Thank you

 
At 05 November, 2006 22:02, Blogger SomebodysGotAScrewLoose said...

The first paragraph of this post was posted by black knight on this same blog I am reposting his post and my response because I think that it is very important.


why wouldn’t the building fall straight down on its own, and as you see in the pics and movies from that day you can clearly see that the buildings start to follow right were the planes it. the floors where the planes hit fool down on top of the under floors bringing down the upper floors all against the lowers flowers that have no way to sustain this. do you imagine the amount of people, civilian people that would have to know that history and that would have to lie to that conspiracy be write. how come none of them say anythin yet.


hey black night its called resistance. When a moving object collides with another object the moving object imparts to that other object some (not all - although all is possible but only under the most perfect of circumstances) of its force. the force departed is dependant upon the moving object speed at the time of impact. since we know were these buildings were damaged (meaning where they’re weakest spots were) we can make a projection - based on the scientific facts that are stated in the second and third sentences’ of this paragraph - as to how these buildings should fall. As well, we also know the architectural planning and structure that went in to these buildings, more scientific information perfect to help us make our projection. These buildings were built progressively which means that they were stronger at the bottom than they were at the top, but don’t let this fool you that does not mean that these buildings were buy any means weak at the top.

We know that the lower floors, below where the structures were impacted were structurally sound. the buildings had resisted wind forces greater than that of the force of the impact of the plains since they’re inception, and those forces were directed at those building in there entirety not at just one spot. Now here is where any human being with a brain can destroy the pancake theory. As I said the buildings were progressively built this means that as the top part of the buildings collapse the collapsing portions of the buildings continually encounters a greater amount of resistance. Now taking into Account the force of free falling objects or “gravity” which is thirty-two feet per second per second starting at zero from the point of release (which means that for every second that an object falls in earth gravity it falls thirty-two faster than the second before until it reaches terminal velocity; the point at which gravity can no longer increase the objects speed). We can clearly see that starting from zero speed and falling twelve feet (the distance between each floor of the building) before encountering massive resistance at thirty-two feet per second per second, and while encountering progressively stronger resistance as the collapse continued. It is entirely impossible for either building to have collapsed at freefall speed.

So what should have happened? Your question: why shouldn’t the buildings have fallen strait down. As I said in the first paragraph at the time of collapse we know where the weakest spots in the structure were. Now setting aside the enormous amounts of research conducted in the area of why steel building do not collapse strait down due to being structurally unsound and the enormous amounts of research conducted on how to make a building collapse strait down - both ducted mainly by demolition companies and affiliates, thus affirming the need for they’re services lest a structurally unsound building collapse occur on its own in an uncontrolled manner, in effect falling sideways and damaging surrounding buildings - we shall set this enormous amount of scientific fact aside and focus on the fundamental science of why a structurally unsound building does not collapse strait down.

Case in point the twin towers, building two: The first impact occurred at roughly eight-tenths the height of the building this was the impact that struck more center mass and as a result caused more structural damage to the interior of the building. Fires burned in this building for approximately two hours before the collapse occurred. When the collapse occurred the entire top two-tenths of the building fell at free fall speed as though every support in that entire part of the structure had suddenly given way then this portion disappeared into the still standing portion of building below it before the rest of the building began to collapse. Now, if this building had actually spontaneously collapsed according to the laws of physics, the collapse would have begun where the building was the weakest not throughout that entire portion of the building simultaneously. Upon impact jet fuel was spread through out some three floors near the top eight-tenths of the buildings. The building core had a very effective system for preventing air from being sucked up into a fire at any point in the building from the floors below it, and since oxygen could not have traveled through the still structurally sound ceilings and floors in the levels below the fire this fire could not have been fed well from the inside. The hottest part of the fire would have also been the most structurally unsound portion of the building, the point of impact where oxygen would have been the easiest to obtain, the point of impact would have been the hottest spot during the entire time that the building burned further increasing the potential for structural failure at point of impact. And with all the black smoke poring from the point of impact it would not have been easy for oxygen to get into the center of the building. As well the black smoke is a clear indication that the fire was oxygen starved from within. Now, in accordance with the laws of physic a building collapse occurs at the point were the structure is the weakest and that supports do not spontaneously disconnect from each other. What should actually have happened is the point of impact should have collapsed first pulling the still intact support structure (the entire remaining portion of the top two-tenths of the building) with it sideways as it fell. As the rest of the building below the point of impact fell it should have been a very erratic and sporadic collapse and should not have occurred at free fall speed.

Building one: The second impact occurred at approximately three-fourths the height of the building this time the impact did not occur at center mass instead it impacted more toward one of the corners of the building. The most significant difference between these two occurrences (impact one and two) is the amount of weight between point of impact and the top of the building, and the fact that the building was struck at its corner drastically increasing its potential to collapse sideways. At the beginning of the collapse of building one this sideways stile collapse began to manifest. Now this sideways collapse should have continue to fruition. the only possible way that this stile of collapse could have been halted would have been to completely remove the resistance from below this collapsing portion of the structure. This complete removal of resistance did occur as the entire remaining lower portion of the structure began to collapse at the speed of gravity this is a completely impossible occurrence outside of the realm of controlled demolition. Fact: a structurally unsound building dose not collapse cemetericly (which was the case with these buildings) on its own at the speed of gravity, what so ever! A building collapsing on its own collapses erratically and sporadically and not at the speed of gravity.

I could generate hours upon hours of reading concerning this subject but I will continue no further why don’t you study some science and start thinking for yourself instead of having other people do the thinking for you; cause believe it, they are counting on the fact that most people in America don’t know science from a hole in the wall, like a three story hole in the wall if you catch my drift.

 
At 11 November, 2006 11:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My Question to anyone who thinks it was a bunch of Arabs.....What in the world was the motivation to spend the kind of money it takes to pull this off? Three thousand dead Americans? CMON PEOPLE!!!! That doesnt mean jack sh*t. We still stand strong, unlike when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leaving Japan helpless. Our military just went over there and kicked their ass. Thats like me, a 5'10 Italain guy, walking into a cop station and start stabbing them. Sure Id get one or two, but eventually my ass would be grass. So what in the world is my motivation? What do these Arabs gain by 9-11? NOTHING.

 
At 15 November, 2006 16:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just watched loose change, and it does raise some good questions. In an issue that has more doubts and cloudiness than the dust created from the incident itself, I think you must try firstly deal with what we do know with reasonable assurity. And the truth is to have so many theories, arguments and counter arguments on the issue of a terrorist attack raises its own suspicions. When you look at conspiricy theories on 95% of all other terrorist attacks (Madrid, London, Oklahoma city, The first WTC, and Bali to name a few) there are very little theories and those that exist have little or no solidity in their claims. Mostly becuase the investigations were transparant, and evidence was for all to see, there were no agents stealing video tapes, and buildings not even hit by the attacks collapsing, and mysterious missing aircraft. I don't, and nobody else (bar a very few)knows for sure what hit the pentagon. But what does seem certain is that some truth is being hidden. To me this is beyond doubt, You don't try to cover something up unless there is something you don't want people to find. If the government was totally innocent, had no involvement, no forewarning of the attacks, then, they would have wanted the cameras rolling on everything, to show and unite its people as to what was happening.They would have wanted to prove undoubtedly who was to blame. Not withold information that would simply prove the truth, such as video tapes of what hit the pentagon.(which is laughable at the least to say none exist) There are not many unanswered questions for any other significant terrorist attack to this level of hype. There has never been so many unanswered and undeniable 'black holes' of information in any other major event that has ended with the total innocence of those being suspected. My point is, I think, the answer lies in the questions, for if there was total innocence, every single document, every video, every peice of metal would have been tranparantly investigated and everything laid out for all to see. The very fact that there are so many questions that may never be answered shows some level of guilt. How much no one knows, and one can only speculate and come to their own conclusions. But in my view, I am 100% sure that there is not total innocence within the government on this issue, and something is being hidden, whether major plots, or just incompetant discrepancies, something isn't being told. particularly knowing Americas history of supporting some of the most sickening regimes and individuals in history. You only have to look at Pinochet (supported by the CIA, before having to be embarrisingly removed) PopaDoc of Haiti (who was supported by US government before being removed for Appauling human rights record). The taleban (who were funded and trained by America while they were fightin the Russians). Saddam Hussain who bought weapons and was aided by America during the early stages of the Iran Iraq war. And going back further the Vietminh (VC) who were sold weapons and trained by Americans during world war 2, only to fight them 20 years later and inflict bitter defeat.

 
At 21 November, 2006 16:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This goes to the fucknut called "unemplawyer" from Canada who says jet fuel could never bring down those buildings.
It doesn't take much heat to weaken metal. Tower 2 went down first because of the way the second plane cut into it. The weight of the (more) numerous upper floors (than Tower 1) was too much to bear after the supports had been weakened from the HEAT caused by the fuel. Then Tower 1 went the same way. It really doesn't take much more than common sense knowledge to see this as a total possibility... bla, bla, bla. Any journeyman welder, metal worker or bozo who took metal shop in high school can attest to this. You probably "are" a fucken lawyer - which have "0" credibility with me anyway.

To James B: "Unemplawyer, if you allowed me to lie 80% of the time, I could put together a convincing argument that Canada was a physical impossibility..."

As a Canadian, after looking south all these years, I'm happy to know I exist. So you yanks can just keep on thinking we're a bunch of glue sniffing, igloo dwellers. U.S. attitudes like this "are" a the root of the 9/11 attacks. By and large, you people live in a fucken dreamworld... that's the dangerous part.

 
At 25 November, 2006 08:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lots of information. Yet I really dont think this could be pulled off as a conspiracy. Someone would be talking by now.

Take for example the plausability of "intentionally imploding the trade centers." I beleive these would be the largest buildings ever destroyed like this. Typically and certainly in this case it would take 100's of man hours just engineering to plan THIS AND THEN MANY PEOPLE and MANY days to set explosives. all specialized skills and .not to mention that ussually large structural members are removed before such imploding... and then this has to go off with out a hitch for 3 buildings...just hard to believe cause I know that reality check would say many many people necessarry to pull this off and many months of planning and no one has come forward ...I would conservativly say to pull off all this stuff as described would take a minimum of 100 people in the "know" and 6 months of intense planning...and not one to come forward or spill the beans...this is the hard part to believe

 
At 26 November, 2006 22:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever Screw Loose Change says seems to be rubbish at every level. I have yet to see anything useful here other than corecting Loose Change slightly when it's got dates wrong!!!!

Come on you idiots! Truth will prevail regardless of you trying to debunk Loose Change or any other film out of spite. You do more to debunk yourselves throughout your film/book. With quotes like these:

"I heard lots of explosions!" from LC's witnesses and SLC saying "Is that evidence of a bomb?"
Is downright sarcastic at best. With various Fire Officers saying they'd "seen secondary devices" and then witnesses hearing/seeing explisions IS EVIDENCE worth investigating. The 9/11 Commision and all, have done no such thing ever. Other than creating more lies such as the WTC's having "a large hollow shaft in the middle" WTF!!!! Anyone who has seen designs for them can see the 47 box coloums making up the center of the WTC. It does exist! LIES LIES LIES!!!!!! Dont believe ANYONE just take in ALL the FACTS/LIES and work out which has the best grounds. 9/11 and 7/7 were BOTH inside jos as both contain the hallmarks of government involvment, so I have 3 senarios from my year or so of debating with people. The governments are accusable of either:

A) Letting them happen
B) Helping them happen
or
C) Making them happen all themselves

There are just too many oddities surrounding both events to just say "they would never do that".
Think about it, if you could get loads of land, trillions of dollers, more powers, MORE AND MORE MONEY, dominate the world and be in charge just by having some people killed and get away with it, what would you do? The less scrupulous would do it, the most nicest people would probably do it.

Dont ever be ignorant or blind of truth. I urge you all, weather believers of an inside job or not.......OPEN YOUR MIND TO POSSIBILITES YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE!

 
At 26 November, 2006 23:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone said the hole at the pentagon was 16feet. Its 9feet or so in some shots, I suppose its down to your perspective of how big it was. Its worth noting the hole on the INSIDE of the Pentagon was also 9feet or so. The plane managed to plough through 9feet of steel reinforced concrete. Now thats a STURDY plane they want us to believe in! Nope, no plane is not what im saying, Im careful about the pentagon cause some reckon it might be a trap for people looking for truth. But I suggest it was a smaller plane, a missile or a plane WITH a missile. That would explain the bizzare damage. Until they stop hiding the footage we'll never know. Assuming its GOOD footage BTW

 
At 30 November, 2006 14:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

my friend loose change does not claim 2 no exactly wot happened on that day,however since i have watched this film the way i view the world and life has changed considerably. After watching loose change 2nd edition i have been continually researching 9/11 and there are gaping holes in the explanation we are given by the most powerful government in the world,if u believe wot u are being told after researching the facts u are clearly so patriotic to the war lords that have hijacked america u would rather shoot yourself in the face than stand up and question the truth that is being offered to you.its only a matter of time b4 enough people learn about the 'screw ups' in the official explanation of 9/11 and wake the fuck up!!

 
At 30 November, 2006 15:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

my friend,loose change does not claim 2 no exactly what happened on 9/11 however since watching this film the way i view life and the world has changed considerably! if u have researched 9/11 and cannot find any reason 2 question the lies that are being told u seriously need to wake up!'screw loose change' is bullshit! u need 2 look agen m8!the truth is starin u in the face but you're mind wont let u believe it.

 
At 03 December, 2006 20:49, Blogger The Barry said...

Here's just a thought:

Suppose that 9-11 is proven to be an act of state terrorism. When compared with other acts of violence committed by a government against it's citizens, it doesn't really compete in amounts of civilian deaths (I'm thinking specifically of the Holocaust and the El Salvadoran civil wars, etc.).

I'm not denying that 9-11 is tragedy on an enormous scale. The fact is, the federal government being directly involved is really not so hard to imagine.

I know this doesn't really add to the any argument about the government being involved, but I thought I'd throw it out there. By the way, I love the discussion this forum creates. This is where true awareness is born.

 
At 05 December, 2006 19:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you say 'steel melts at 2750F' pretty emphatically. I can say 'water boils at 100F' but ya know what, at 1000 ft altitude it may boil at 95F. On Mount Everest you can boil water at 75F. You’re not even taking into account the carbon content of the steel, which has everything to do with it's bending point, which by the way is nowhere near 2750F. A blacksmith bends high carbon steel in a tiny oven fueled by a couple pounds of COAL. But thousands of gallons of jet fuel won't do the trick, wow that makes alot of sense!

This is a common mistake that many people make. Jet fuel only burns at 1700 degrees Fahrenheit when it's not in open air. Also, that is the maximum temperature in which it can burn at while in closed spaces. Obviously the jet fuel did not burn in a closed space because there was a gaping hole in the building from the crash. Jet Fuel in open-air burns anywhere from 500 degrees to 599 degrees Fahrenheit. A kitchen fire sets off 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. Consider the wind at that height and it's probably somewhere around 400 degrees. Refined steel melts anywhere from 2500 to 3000. Depending upon who and how well someone makes it.

Although the impact of the jetliners was strong, it was the heat from the explosion that most likely caused the buildings to collapse, experts say.

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.


The excerpt above is directly from the 9/11 commission report. We can therefore conclude that the report is flawed.

Now just because the report is incorrect doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy afoot. However.

WTC buildings burnt for less than an hour and fell from a fire burning at 500 degrees.

Scientists have burnt down houses made of brick and stone and even tile at 1100 degrees. It usually takes hours for the building to fall due to the WOOD support beams holding up the building even after they've burnt.

This just cannot go unnoticed. It just can't...

 
At 18 December, 2006 10:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like what yiddish_redneck had to say:

Basically, if there was a conspiracy... there will be people who deny it. And if there was no conspiracy, there will be people to deny it. Your faith can move mountains. (it isn't necessarily the mountain moving... it is only you)

 
At 18 December, 2006 16:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Captain Burlingame seam, it seemes, came from Barbara Honegger.

 
At 20 December, 2006 17:45, Blogger No Hassle Loans said...

Hey nice blog. Although it�s not what I was looking for. I am looking for info on Payday Loans or a Cash Advance so I can buy some Hoodia Diet Pills.. I found your blog very interesting

 
At 23 December, 2006 03:59, Blogger Paulie said...

James, your attempted debunking of loosechange is to say the least a SLOPPY job.
The facts are set in stone for all to see, the information is out there for all to see. Buildings collapsing at free fall speed after an hour of low heat burning.

LOOSECHANGE IS NOT THE AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT!!! THIS CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THEM

FLIGHT 93 LEAVING NO WRECKAGE, NO BODIES, AND AS THE ON SITE CORONER SAID "HE STOPPED BEING A CORONER AFTER 10 MINUTES" NO BODIES NO BLOOD NO EVIDANCE OF A DEATH.

WHY CONFISCATE VIDEO OF THE PLANE WHICH HIT THE PENTAGON? (STILL HAS NOT RELEASED ANY FOOTAGE WHICH RESEMBLES A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON)
DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

THERE ARE NUMEROUS QUESTIONS WHICH NEED ANSWERING.

EVERYTIME I AM CONVINCED THERE IS A LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR WHAT HAPPENED BY READING BLOGS LIKE YOURS.
I INVESTIGATE FURTHER AND SEE YOUR SITE FOR WHAT IT IS, A LOAD OF ILL-INFORMED TRASH WITH VERY LITTLE RESEARCH AND NO EXPLANATION WHICH HOLDS UP TO ANY REAL SCRUTINY.
I MUST ASK, DO YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT?

 
At 25 December, 2006 19:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets Remember CNN,Fox,nbc, Ect. pretty much every news media and radio stations are controlled and or owned by Jews.........let that one sink in to your head.....and guess who transfers all phone calls made in the USA to Domestic and International...

 
At 29 December, 2006 12:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so u dissproved some of the statments. why dont you mention any thing about the real evidence such as the colaplse of steel foundation proven to with stand the heat of the fire and the mulitple explosions clearly seen and heard before the building collapsed but after they were struck by the planes oooo ya and if the film "loose change" was a fruad why is the goverment so afraid of what it has to say.

 
At 29 December, 2006 12:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so u dissproved some of the statments. why dont you mention any thing about the real evidence such as the colaplse of steel foundation proven to with stand the heat of the fire and the mulitple explosions clearly seen and heard before the building collapsed but after they were struck by the planes oooo ya and if the film "loose change" was a fruad why is the goverment so afraid of what it has to say.

 
At 29 December, 2006 12:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so u dissproved some of the statments. why dont you mention any thing about the real evidence such as the colaplse of steel foundation proven to with stand the heat of the fire and the mulitple explosions clearly seen and heard before the building collapsed but after they were struck by the planes oooo ya and if the film "loose change" was a fruad why is the goverment so afraid of what it has to say.

 
At 12 January, 2007 23:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having watched the British Made documentry on the assassination of Pres. Kennedy and now Loose Change, it just shows that the powers have honed their skills and that Screw Loose Change is living in the past and wants to see a world that isn't there. It would be nice to ignore Loose Change and believe that a skinny unskilled "patsy" killed a president but then Mark Twain would have stayed broke too !

 
At 29 January, 2007 18:49, Blogger SecondLife said...

Above in this blog a blogger says: "As members of the worlds foremost democracy..."!!! This is outrageous. It is the best democracy money can buy. I live in a country of 4million people which has 6 political parties(which is still not enough). How can 2 parties adequately represent the views of 250million plus people?? America...home of the free and the brave...it always makes me laugh!Idiots.

 
At 05 February, 2007 00:09, Blogger tiredofit said...

screw loose change? I dont think so govy boys! So, what is the current pay rate for selling your FREEDOM??? So you're telling me you enjoy the patriot act? You sure are defending it. Unplug yourselves from the matrix. Open your eyes and see the truth.

 
At 08 February, 2007 00:18, Blogger Matt said...

O.o I cant really believe I am hearing soooo many stupid people talk. Loose change is complete bullshit...Find the mad maddox's webpage which makes very much sense. The sole reason that I know loose change is bullshit is that the people who made it (college kids with not enought free time) are still living.

 
At 15 February, 2007 05:51, Blogger Tom said...

Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing it - Phillip K. Dick.

 
At 20 February, 2007 03:49, Blogger malcolm said...

for all those who think LC is full of crap... you're entitled to your opinion. however, i would urge you to use common sense. why is it SO outrageous a claim that the gov't was somehow involved in 9-11? i'm a veteran of the US Army and when i took my oath of induction, i swore to defend this country from ALL enemies... foreign and DOMESTIC. it pains me to concede that the circumstances surrounding 9-11 point directly at the gov't. i didn't want to believe it... but the truth of the matter is certain aspects of 9-11 leave no room for other culprits. bin laden can't send our nation's defenses off to a region of the planet rendering them obsolete in the event of an attack on american soil... neither can he manipulate the physics surrounding the collapse of the twin towers. any person that can honestly convince themselves that those two buildings collapsed the way they did without the aid of explosives throughout the building has to rethink much of who they are as logical human beings...

 
At 23 February, 2007 08:37, Blogger honestyneeded said...

As an Englishman living in Europe I find it incredible that the majority of the American public will believe ANYTHING that their Government tells them. I understand that you want to believe but just use common sense: you cannot carry on believing them when they continually lie to the very people they are supposed to be working for. Your Government, and others including the British Government, have continually lied, misinformed and deliberately misled their citizens for decades. For God's sake wake up! If Tony Bair or George bush told me it was night time I would have to go outside and check.

 
At 12 March, 2007 11:53, Blogger Justin said...

Screw it all. Debating helps nothing. only action. This crap is all so old it drove me crazy.

 
At 16 March, 2007 14:27, Blogger philnyc said...

To the posters who are actually saying something (and not just ranting) I commend you all on both sides. My take on this matter is a bit complex.

First off, I am NOT convinced that 100% of the official report is true. I'm also NOT convinced that all of the proposals in "Loose Change" are true. I don't see enough evidence in the reports and photographs of the Pentagon to convince me that a 757 hit it. But, I have a hard time believing that there was a covert op to throw identifiable, dead bodies into the wreckage. I do not believe there is any way whatsoever that the towers and subsequently WTC-7 fell with such precision based on a few thousand gallons of burning jet fuel. That simply didn't happen, no way.

So, I feel that "Loose Change" is a very important piece in it's success in waking up a thought process that it seems so many people around the world have laid down. To actually question "facts" we are served. The freedom that so many tout as the final justification for raping and destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, the freedom that America promises to the world with every explosion, is based on the questioning of authority and the personal review of information.

So, did Cheney sit in a bunker with a radio control on missiles? I really doubt that. Did all the myriad coincidences of the official report happen, not a chance. I commend the producers of Loose Change and look forward to whatever new information and ideas it fosters.

 
At 19 March, 2007 03:41, Blogger Ross said...

I have seen a couple movies claiming the conspiracy, and I've read a lot of this website. And so far, I am so confused about this whole thing, and I don't know what to think. I think government is a bunch of crap, I think Dylan represented his movie and opinions poorly in many videos I've seen. On one hand it seems obvious that the US government did this to us, because of all the potential gains. On the other hand Dylan's shady movie was fully of inconsistencies, lies, and half truths. Yet, despite all of it. A lot of video footage makes it seem that the buildings came down oddly and shouldn't have in the first place. I think there are errors in this website AND Loose Change. I think that if enough people see loose change, a huge international investigation would take place and unfold hard facts that are backed up undoubtedly. That's what everyone needs. As long as it's not aired on Fox. Lol. Anyway. The only thing that is still really pushing me that 911 is an inside job, is William Rodriguez's speech about 911, and his experience. I don't know what to believe. Researching this topic gives mixed biased results everywhere, and it's very difficult to find any relevance to anything either proving it, or disproving it. One day when we are all old, we will either think back to that horrible movie that convinced many people that our government did horrible things for profit, or we will think back to that shady movie that brought up enough questions about 911 that it ended up uncovering the largest cover up in history.

 
At 03 April, 2007 13:23, Blogger Damon said...

I am pained at the stupidity of people. A bunch of idiots make a movie with carefully edited quotes and sitting ‘facts’ without using common sense, and this many people just want to believe in conspiracy so badly they just eat it up.

Yes I know jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steal, Jet fuel will burn hot enough to weaken steal to about 50% or so. So you don’t have to melt it just weaken it. Mind you there is also a gaping hole in the building. Easy enough to find out on your own right? I guess not sense every moron who saw this stupid video jumps at the chance to tell me the melting point of steal.

Yes I know before and sense 9/11 no sky scraper ever fell down dew to fire. How many sky scrapers before or sense were also holed by a fucking jet liner doing about 450 MPH before catching on fire?!?!

Yes I know we’ve all scene plane crashes on the new, and most of the time there are more and bigger peaces of the planes. Lets try some common sense thinking. Think of a car hitting a wall at 40 MPH and the damage that causes, and the much more destructive damage that happens at 80 MPH. Now apply that to a plane, most crashes are not pilots bend on destroying the plane with the throttles wide open trying to kill people. Most occur around the Stall speed of the air craft between 100 and 180 MPH depending on make and model, while the pilots try and keep it in the air. On 9/11 the planes were going around 500 MPH. So even a trained chimp could figure out that high speeds at impact mean, more damage. So to translate that in to moron for all you retards out there. Things that break a low speeds, break even worse at high speeds!

Now time for dumbass assumptions made in lose change.
1. The government is smart and skilled enough to execute the grandest conspiracy in the history of time in front every American with a TV, but they can’t properly manage a war in a 3rd world shithole like Iraq.

2. The government has no problem lying to the world about 9/11, but it does somehow see a moral dilemma in planting WMDs in Iraq after the invasion to prove there case.

3. Bill Clinton can’t get head in the oval office from some chunky bitch with out the whole world hearing about it, but the government can keep the 10s of thousands of people that would have to be involved with a 9/11 conspiracy quite.

4. The plane is going to fire a missile into the tower before it crashes into it, and the masterminds of this conspiracy who have taken years to plan this out can only hope there is a bad camera angle and nobody sees this happen.

5. The government has no problem killing 3000 of it’s own citizens , but they wouldn’t dare kill the guys who try to expose there plot the second lose change is posted to the internet. Please don’t give me your bullshit excuses like “Well if these guys died then we’d know for sure!” Cause if the government made this big huge plan and carried it out, it wouldn’t end on September 11th 2001. It would continue after and they would have people looking for leaks and covering there asses. These guys would be killed the day they posted and no one but the 5 people who watched this hunk of shit video would care, and none of them would bother checking up to see if the government erased the lose change crew.

Some people just can’t handle that the world is so unsafe, that this could happen all because 19 jerk offs had nothing better to do with there lives but sneak into our country and kill themselves. This is nothing new. Some people couldn’t handle that an tiny little meaningless man like Oswald could kill JFK. Some people need to know that the only people who can hurt them are the ones with the might of the US government and no one else. It helps you sleep at night sure, but it’s still deluding yourself.

In closing I have to admit I get a laugh out of this. Cause you people will believe what you see on some dumb ass internet video, and the whole time the guys who made Lose Change know that they are full of shit and must think you believers out there are even more retarded then I think you are. Kinda ironic.

 
At 11 April, 2007 08:13, Blogger Jeff said...

There is nothing on this site that changes my mind about what happened on 9/11. Our government was involved. From the twin towers coming down at freefall speed, building 7, a block away, imploding after sustaining very little damage, the support buildings at the base of the towers remaining standing after being severely damaged, the impact site at the pentagon baring no resemblance to one of a commercial jet hitting it. The list goes on and on. 9/11 was an inside job and the sooner people wake up and face those facts the sooner we can hold those responsible accountable.

 
At 15 April, 2007 11:34, Blogger Pegasus Engine said...

Insidejob wrote:
--------------------
Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.
--------------------

Okay, this is why many people think 9-11 conspiracy theorists are somewhere between dumb kooks and evil twits.

The ABC article mentions no dancing and celebrating.

Here’s what the article really says:
--------------------
Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.
The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.
--------------------

So all of this rests on one woman’s interpretation of facial expressions. No dancing and celebrating!

The article further says:
--------------------
Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted.
--------------------

So to prove your point you cite a source that concludes the exact opposite of what you’re saying. This should be so embarrassing for you. Shouldn’t it? At most you’ve got exactly zero evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11.

 
At 22 April, 2007 20:10, Blogger tangeman said...

I saw the film. I dunno what to make of it at times. It does raise some questions, but I somehow get the funny feeling that the guys who did loose change are in it for the money. After all, it did start off as fiction.

What gets me is that were they actually there at the Pentagon? Probably not. But how they seem to whimsically just ignore countless people's testimony on seeing a commercial sized passenger plane flying real low over I-395 is beyond me. Oh wait, all those people who gave their testimonies are actually government agents?

I can see the point people are making about how LC is supposed to raise questions. It does raise a question: are the LC people in it for the money?

 
At 22 April, 2007 20:30, Blogger tangeman said...

One more thing i wanted to add. Imagine you wrote a paper in college or post undergrad and you wrote it in the manner of which LC was constructed. I bet the prof would most likey return it to you with a big fat "F." That said, would then the prof say well, your paper raised some interesting questions, or rather something to the effect of learn how to write. I would think most professors would pick the latter. How can a flawed paper actually raise serious questions when it uses flawed sources and discounts any source that it does not agree with.

no I'm not trying to defend this site, although I think it makes some relevant points. I just find it an insult to my intelligence that LC people want me to think they are raising questions with the way they supported their points? I think misquotes speak for themselves. Please be honest and ask yourself if you would ever write a paper the way these guys made their points in the movie.

 
At 24 May, 2007 02:35, Blogger captain spiff said...

You can try to screw a few details, but you can never make the twin Towers to go down as they did, without explosives within.

Please use your mind, and not your heart or your pride.

 
At 06 June, 2007 10:39, Blogger jr said...

i hate these tossers who made this lame video, such disrespect for the people who died that day

i ever find that cunt responsible for this video ill crash that motherfucker myself into a building

 
At 13 June, 2007 19:16, Blogger Hoboken2 said...

I have 3 questions about the movie Loose Change version 2.
I the formula that they use for the speed of collapse is wrong. They say it is T squared = D squared / Acceleration. The actual formula is T squared = D / Accleration. They further made a mistake by doubling a value that they said should be squared. The height of the towers.
At every crash site the area of damage is much wider than they state and can be determined comparing sizes of objects near the damage sites. The hole int he groud and compare tot he cross bars of the electric pole.
I only watched once and those things just jumped out at me.

They show Osama eating and writing with his right hand even though he is left handed. I am left handed and having travelled in Muslem countries I know that it is considered filthy to eat with your left hand. it is considered rude to even hand something to someone with your left hand. It can make things difficult for those of us who are left handed.
Hoboken2

 
At 06 July, 2007 06:30, Blogger jacqueline said...

all i know is you cant go anywhere but to hell with the lies you are trying to cover up! i bet if your family was harmed that day you would sing a different song... and besides, do you think your lies will matter in the end? our "gov" is screwing YOU TOO! they will chew you up and spit you out when you are done serving their purpose...for you to even consider that bush is not underhandedly responsible for 911, makes me wonder what part you played in all this! give it a rest... after all, the truth always prevails, and your sins shall also be known...

 
At 09 July, 2007 18:47, Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2007 18:48, Blogger William said...

Am I the only one here to question how a respected university got building plans which reveals load bearing floor plans and then publishes the image of such structural integrity of the pentagon on the Internet without censorship from the government?

Keep bringing the BS... I'll keep shooting it down.

 
At 09 July, 2007 20:14, Blogger knvb1123 said...

Your so called wannabe-counter-Loose Change all are not related to those facts it is trying to counter it a enough-substantial way.

Just not enough. Plus your counter attacks suck.

I bet a White House Aide runs this blog hiding his/her identity as some dumbass in the wild.

 
At 11 July, 2007 15:29, Blogger Molly said...

Alright. I am so sick of people acting like I'm a loony when they're talking about a mass conspiracy involving...practically everyone. I'm not that patriotic. I don't care one way or another for Bush. I'm just sick of people gnawing each other's heads off! Just stop! The most believable idea out there is that a plane crashed into some towers. But, maybe all of you guys want this big mass conspiracy to be true. You want chaos.

 
At 23 July, 2007 14:01, Blogger Set Fire To The Face On Fire said...

Hahaha...I can use Ad Hominem too. If your going to be classy about "debunking" LC, try taking a non-political way about it. Same goes for LC...I saw the debate with Popular Mechanics. But I think LC is great because it gets people thinking. Right or wrong...it gets everyone thinking about the life around them. The only thing worse than a liar is apathy. You might as well be dead if you don't care about anything.

 
At 31 July, 2007 23:46, Blogger Kyle said...

Loose Change has made me think long and hard about the truth of what we have been told. I encourage everyone to see this movie and look at the rebuttals online and decide for themselves. For me...call me a nut...but my views have changed. Sorry Screw Loose Change, you lose.

 
At 04 August, 2007 03:04, Blogger lermingoo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home