MR

Hey, I think someone here recommended this movie regarding 9/11...

Where are ya! I wanna yak about it!

What's it about?

about 2 hours!

No, it's a conspiracy theory movie about 9/11. Pretty freaking thought provoking.
Talked about a ton of things that didn't add up, witnesses to things like explosions on the lower levels of the WTC 7, blasting powder found in the residue of the buildings, etc. It was really interesting.

It starts out with talking about Nazi Germany and how the German Parliment building was torched in the night by the Nazi's themselves and then blamed on a Communist dupe. This allowed the Nazi's to take over, ban all communist literature, etc. and basically take control of the country and take away a lot of people's civil liberties. Pretty much under the cover of "Saving our nation" but actually seizing control.

The film likens the events of 9/11 to that.

Some of the things that were interesting (and I'm not expert and I don't know what I believe, it was just super interesting)-

There was a "neo-conservative" group that consisted of Cheney, Jeb Bush, and others that produced this document regarding (and I'm doing this from memory) what it would take to basically seize control of the US. They determined that one cataclysmic event could be used to remove people's liberties, and basically take total control of the government. According to the filmaker's hypothesis, that cataclysmic event was 9/11. This was pre-Bush.

Then it presents MANY inconsistancies and findings about the whole thing:
Examples:

1) According to the film, there were military war games going on for a few days prior to 9/11 and on 9/11 itself that used mock hijackings as training exercices. The film played audio of air traffic controllers kind of laughing about it, because they were in the know about these exercises and kind of letting them happen as they were military training exercises. So basically, they were confused that while the real hijackings were going on, that they were real. So they didn't do anything about them.

2) These mock hijackings were being handled via two air force bases at opposite ends of the country (I forget which) and after Bush heard the news (while he was listening to the kids read in the classroom) he want to BOTH of those airbases before heading back to the white house.

3) There was blast powder residue in the ashes of the WTC.

4) WTC 7 was another building across the street from the Twin Towers. This building held a TON of CIA and Secret Service documentation. This building collapsed just like the Twin Towers did hours later. However, there were two guys in the building that had to be rescued by firefighters. They BOTH heard explosions coming from that building even though that building was NOT hit by the planes and low and behold, that building also collapsed. Apparently, in the 'sky scraper history' only 3 buildings have EVER caught on fire and totally come down. The Twin Towers and this other building. The Twin Towers came down within an hour. Other buildings had burned for up to 18 hours but had not imploded the way these things did. They had a video taped interview from one of the guys that was in Building 7 and he attested to the explosions. Of course, he happened to die just before he could testify.

5) The film where Bin Laden takes responsibility wasn't translated by a neutral party and a translator says there are a ton of things inconsistent with the video and what the sanctioned translation was.

6) They show a clip of BL- In the first clip that came out after 9/11, he's got a long white/grey beard and looks pretty old. In a clip that came out a few years later, he's young, dark haird, no long white beard. Coulda dyed it, sure, but he looked younger.

7) The plane that crashed in the field- There was absolutely NO wreckage there. Just a hole. No bodies. No metal. No tail, no engine, etc. Nothing but a black hole. They sighted examples of other crashes. There is ALWAYS some sort of wreckage. Same with the Pentagon plane. Nothing found just dust. How does that work? They did show a small section that was found much later (near the field) but whether it came from that wreckage seemed really sketchy. They found NO wreckage or bodies, but supposedly found a drivers license and a hotel card from one of the stewardesses. If the whole plane 'vaporized' how do these few pieces of paper survive???

There were other things too, but it really made a lot of sense when presented in the light that it was.


Just weird stuff.

One more thing, I couldn't help but notice that when I hit "Submit" on this post that it took a long time and actually timed out once. That never happens here... great.....

Isn't that the movie from that loon, Michael Moore?

Pass.....

steveo777 wrote:Isn't that the movie from that loon, Michael Moore?

Pass.....

No, it's not.

The history channel or national geographic had a show with a few arbitrary top scientists to rty and debunk it (or give it merit) and they concluded that the theories were beyond laughable. There wasn't one thing they were even "uncertain" about. It's a moronic movie.

Fuck, the thing's so dumb that even the worst channels like MSNBC and its affiliates won't even waste their time with it.

LOL, sounds like an interesting view. I don't think I'd call it "thought provoking" though from the sounds of it. Sounds like some nice entertainment at the whackjob filmmakers' expense though.

brywool wrote:

steveo777 wrote:Isn't that the movie from that loon, Michael Moore?

Pass.....

No, it's not.

Wrong loon, sorry.

I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

brywool wrote:I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

Aren't you also one who believes we never landed on the moon?

RedWingFan wrote:

brywool wrote:I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

Aren't you also one who believes we never landed on the moon?

No.

OK folks heres a quiz...which statement is more laughable


a) steve perry and neal schon are best of friends really and are planning a reunion

b) loose change 911 is a plausuble movie which should be taken seriously

Gin and Tonic Sky wrote:OK folks heres a quiz...which statement is more laughable


a) steve perry and neal schon are best of friends really and are planning a reunion

b) loose change 911 is a plausuble movie which should be taken seriously

dead heat...

brywool wrote:I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

I have no idea, Bryan. I watch A&E, The Historu Channel and so many of the Discovery channels that it's impossible to remember when I'm just randomly flipping through them. And the whole "jet fuel" conspiracy theory is bullshit. The protective fire coating was ripped away from the steel beams when the plane came through the building at over 500 mph. It was all explained quite well. They elicited an ammiediate knee jerk reaction, but once scientists were able to gather information and really delve into the facts, Loose Change turned into nothing more than poo poo.

Saint John wrote:

brywool wrote:I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

I have no idea, Bryan. I watch A&E, The Historu Channel and so many of the Discovery channels that it's impossible to remember when I'm just randomly flipping through them. And the whole "jet fuel" conspiracy theory is bullshit. The protective fire coating was ripped away from the steel beams when the plane came through the building at over 500 mph. It was all explained quite well. They elicited an ammiediate knee jerk reaction, but once scientists were able to gather information and really delve into the facts, Loose Change turned into nothing more than poo poo.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com

Saint John wrote:

brywool wrote:I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

I have no idea, Bryan. I watch A&E, The History Channel and so many of the Discovery channels that it's impossible to remember when I'm just randomly flipping through them. And the whole "jet fuel" conspiracy theory is bullshit. The protective fire coating was ripped away from the steel beams when the plane came through the building at over 500 mph. It was all explained quite well. They elicited an immediate knee jerk reaction, but once scientists were able to gather information and really delve into the facts, Loose Change turned into nothing more than poo poo.

I saw the same show and it was really interesting. They had scientists go over all the various conspiracy theories and prove them wrong, fact by scientific fact. I've watched several of the conspiracy programs (but not specifically Loose Change) and I'm not buying the conspiracy theory at all.

Lora wrote:

Saint John wrote:

brywool wrote:I'd have to see the debunking show, but the stuff they were showing seemed pretty credible. People have doubted the whole "jet fuel brought all 3 buildings down) since day one. The video excerpts they showed detailed explosions that you could see as the things were coming down. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying the show made a lot of sense. This movie also had a University professor who analyzed some of the dust from the thing and found blasting stuff.

Dan, when was your show on? I'd like to watch it.

I have no idea, Bryan. I watch A&E, The History Channel and so many of the Discovery channels that it's impossible to remember when I'm just randomly flipping through them. And the whole "jet fuel" conspiracy theory is bullshit. The protective fire coating was ripped away from the steel beams when the plane came through the building at over 500 mph. It was all explained quite well. They elicited an immediate knee jerk reaction, but once scientists were able to gather information and really delve into the facts, Loose Change turned into nothing more than poo poo.

I saw the same show and it was really interesting. They had scientists go over all the various conspiracy theories and prove them wrong, fact by scientific fact. I've watched several of the conspiracy programs (but not specifically Loose Change) and I'm not buying the conspiracy theory at all.

And they really dumbed it down (obviously, if I was able to understand it all ) for the "average Joe." And it all made sense. Loose Change conveniently ommitted small but extremely important details. Scientists debunked everything with ease. But I will say this; the whole point/counterpoint thing was really cool, so I'll give Loose Change some artistic merit, but as nothing more than a good fictional documentary. Kinda like Blair Witch...without the nausea.