Friday, May 12, 2006

Loose Change Defenders Need to Watch the Movie

One of the defenders here complains:

There's nothing about a shoulder-fired cruise missile in the movie. Stop claiming this.

Let's go to the videotape! From about 23:40 to 24:03 they present the following "evidence":

So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon,

Smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and leave another 16 foot hole?

A cruise missile.

This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a Tomahawk cruise missile had hit it. See any similarities?

From 23:40 to 23:53 they show somebody using a shoulder-fired missile to destroy a tank. At the point where the tank explodes is where Avery says "A cruise missile."

Here's the evidence that the missile fired in the movie is shoulder-launched. First, just before the firing:

It's not real clear, but there are two people behind the concrete wall to the right. The man actually firing the missile/rocket is behind the sandbags.

After he fires you can see a little better where he's gotta be:

A moment later, he cocks his head to one side and tilts the barrel of the rocket launcher back a bit:

As some of Loose Change's fans say, watch the movie and decide for yourself.

BTW, a cruise missile weighs 3,250 pounds.


At 12 May, 2006 12:12, Blogger XHamasaki said...

so they used a video of a LAW anti-tank missile...big deal. there is no such thing as a shoulder launched cruise missile. they made a mistake putting that clip in the movie,but that doesnt mean a real cruise missile didnt hit the pentagon

At 12 May, 2006 12:25, Blogger telescopemerc said...

You are correct, there is no such thing as as shoulder fired cruise missile. So why are they showing shoulder fired rockets when they are talking about cruise missiles?

Misinformation. They want you to think some evil conspirators would have an easy time just jumping out a van, firing a cruise missile, and leaping back in and fleeing with no-one the wiser. Dylan wants that to be your image of the attack, rather than the logisticly involved firing of a real cruise missile.

Its not like they could not find video of cruise missiles, and its not like they couldn't have researched what a Cruise Missile really is. Instead they give us this rather idiotic error.

At 12 May, 2006 12:26, Blogger ScottSl said...

This blog is getting better and better!!
Keep up the good work!

At 12 May, 2006 12:27, Blogger James B. said...

I thought it was an A3 Skywarrior? Or was it a passenger plane? Or a helicopter? Or a Global Hawk UAV? Which is it!

At 12 May, 2006 12:29, Blogger LT said...

you loose change guys always have it wrong. Its not a LAW in the video. LAWs (light anti-tank weapon) are much smaller and no longer issed (to my knowledge) for use. The weapon in qestion looks more like a Javelin or TOW, but is most likely an AT4. No wonder you guys thought a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building...what a laugh. It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber. If you guys really knew anything about what you hypothesize or theorize about, you would see how utterly ridiculous your claims of government involvement/sponsorship of 911 are.

At 12 May, 2006 12:53, Blogger Realist06 said...

He never said "shoulder-fired" in the video.
What they showed was a simulation. Maybe this was a shoulder-fired missile? It is tough to tell.

But this either way does nothing to prove that a 757 hit the pentagon, nor does it disprove Loose Change in any way.

At 12 May, 2006 13:03, Blogger LT said...

Do you have a job, or work for a living? I wondering if that is possible for someone as dense as you.

At 12 May, 2006 13:09, Blogger LT said...

Ya see,
In debate and argument, the individual or group making the assertion (in this case that the government was behind 9-11) is responsible for PROVING their case - much like a trial. We, the logical, rational people who live on planet earth and understand/know the truth, do not in anyway have to prove to you how 9-11 occurred, although the commission's report does this rather well. You on the other hand, must prove to us what happened, and from what i have gathered during my brief visits to this website, is that the bloggers here are having a great time poking holes in your ridiculous theory of government involvement in 9-11. grow up...

At 12 May, 2006 13:15, Blogger ScottSl said...

Keep track of some of these comments.

They're pure gold!

At 12 May, 2006 15:40, Blogger Realist06 said...

It, nice job jumping right to the name-calling and proving my point!

At 13 May, 2006 00:14, Blogger XHamasaki said...

the LAW is a newer technology than a TOW missil btw. the TOW uses a wire guided system. That is a LAW missle being launched in that movie

but still, this does not chang eanything. the point of loose change is not to pinpoint direct conspiracies, its to make people think and relaize that the official explanation is completely implausible and false

At 14 May, 2006 08:40, Blogger LT said...

I guarantee you that is no LAW in the movie. I have plenty of experience through years in the military - and you? It doesn't matter what the latest technology is. TOWs are fam more advanced than a LAW. LAW is point and shoot, and can't penetrate nearly the armor that a TOW missile can. Do you know why a TOW is wire guided? One of the reasons is to prevent enemy jamming of a radar guidance measures. The other allows for direct control up until the point of impact - steerable if you will. Try doing that with a LAW, over any distance. Like I said, you guys just don't have a clue about the subject matter...

At 18 May, 2006 20:28, Blogger sumy23 said...

Yeah! And he didn't have an updated military technical order with that shoulder fired cruise missle! I just assumed that was some kind of visual imagery used. I really didn't think anything of it.... a cruise missle... sure whatever I get the general idea. I dont need to know the national stock number and what walmart the guy bought his shoulder fired cruise missle from in order to see the point he's getting at.

At 18 May, 2006 20:41, Blogger sumy23 said...

Hey what was Larry Silverstein talking about when he said to "pull" building number 7? Hmm I didnt see any cranes or cables hooked up to the main support beams of building 7 like there were with building 9 when they pulled it.

What about Bush saying he saw the first plane hit WTC1... TWICE??

I guess the channel he was watching on his TV was CNN... and CNN had a live feed pointed at the towers. Remember that picture of him holding the book upside down. Some people say thats crazy and it was staged. I dont believe that. What does it mean when you fly a flag upside down again??

At 18 May, 2006 20:59, Blogger sumy23 said...

I thought about it a bit and you guys are right. Shoulder fired cruise missle. It wasnt a cruise missle in the video. Good job fellas, you've done it. *Starts a slow clap* Well I guess since the case has been solved we can all go home. Let me recap. Shoulder fired missle <> cruise missle
= 911 commission report was right on the money.

I don't really take the pentagon debate very seriously. It's the most hyped and least important and hardest to prove. Ever hear about the 2 airports owned by dutch foriegn nationals where the terrorists got their cesna training at? Kinda weird maybe someone here should look into that. Alex jones was right again, the pentagon debate is a honeypot or straw-man designed to draw everyone into a controlled debate and at a desired point they will release footage of a 747 hitting the pentagon. I think its a good possiblility that a 747 did actually hit the pentagon. I don't care about the pentagon. I'm more interested in the other aspects.

Was Bin laden a CIA agent at one point? Were the terrorists from the 93 world trade center bombings previously trained by the CIA?

Where is Osama now? Was that first video of him really a fake? Why was the new pentagon video released 1 day after Bush's failed speech on immigration? I got a million other questions other than if a 747, A3, cruise missle or any combination of them hit the pentagon.

At 18 May, 2006 21:36, Blogger sumy23 said...

Seriously folks.

"The first airplane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., as the president's motorcade crossed the John Ringling Causeway on the way to Booker Elementary from the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort on Longboat Key."

"Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident.""

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack.""

At 18 May, 2006 21:39, Blogger sumy23 said...

Who cares about loose change or the pentagon. EXPLAIN THAT!! EXPLAIN IT!

At 25 June, 2006 12:08, Blogger Pat said...

He got confused about what he had seen. He probably saw the smoking hole in the North tower before going into the classroom, later saw the tape of the second plane hitting and combined the two moments when remembering it later.

I don't get the fascination with that anyway. We all know that he couldn't have watched the first plane hit the the North tower live. Unlike the rest of us here, he's not immersed in the details of what happened that day and he misremembered the sequence of events.


Post a Comment

<< Home