Reply With Quote
duck and cover!
I just watched Loose Change for the first time.... It made me so mad. It's so obvious what happened in 9/11 yet some people still can't figure it out. I think some Americans love to just be dumb and blind and follow the government without question. God that movie fired me up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...59008768610598
duck and cover!
Here we go again and again and again and again and again.
Now you should go visit one of the dozens of sites that have thoroughly debunked loose change so you can actually make an informed decision.
Ive watched the film and read the debunking sites and I'm not convinced either way - that's why I'm calling for a new investigation...
“Loose Change” Debunked
Amateurish video on 9/11 full of errors, faulty reasoning
An artist’s drawing depicts the aircraft approaching the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. (© The Pentagon Building Performance Report)
Loose Change is perhaps the most popular September 11 conspiracy-theory video, with its various editions reportedly logging more than 10 million web views. The most recent version, Loose Change Second Edition Recut, had more than 5 million web views as of March 2007.
Despite the video’s extraordinary popularity, its claims are so absurd that they are considered an embarrassment by other conspiracy theorists, some of whom have written lengthy critiques of the video’s most outlandish claims.
Loose Change makes very sloppy mistakes in support of its false claim that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The video mistakes two different sections of the large hole caused by the airliner for the entire hole and, ironically, features photographs that actually disprove its “small hole” theory.
The plane that hit the Pentagon created an area of severe damage that was approximately 36.6 meters (120 feet) wide, according to The Pentagon Building Performance Report, published by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Ins ute in January 2003 (p. 35).
As shown in a photo gallery on the attack, the plane’s fuselage and wings caused extensive damage mostly to the Pentagon’s ground floor while the plane’s tail fin and vertical stabilizer created a smaller impact hole on the second floor.
Loose Change mistakenly identifies the portion of the hole on the second floor as the entire hole, and then argues from this mistaken premise that because such a large airliner could not have created such a small hole, the damage must have been caused by a missile.
Then, in a different but equally mistaken analysis, Loose Change identifies the portion of the hole on the far left of the ground floor as the entire hole, even though this “hole” is obviously on the ground floor while the initial “hole” it showed was clearly on the second floor. A person watching the video would be unlikely to spot these inconsistencies because the images are displayed only briefly, but they are obvious if one pauses the video and compares the different images.
Loose Change also includes a photograph that shows extensive damage to the ground floor of the Pentagon, but fails to note this fact, which would undermine its theory. See the photo gallery to view the photographs displayed in Loose Change and other images of the Pentagon attack.
The arguments in other sections of Loose Change suffer from similarly sloppy analysis.
For example, Loose Change claims that the “official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane” that struck the Pentagon, and argues that because this is impossible, the official story can not be trusted. Again, the video is proceeding from a mistaken premise. The plane disintegrated due to its impact with the Pentagon at 853 kilometers per hour (530 miles per hour), but it did not “vaporize.” Emergency response personnel reported seeing hundreds of pieces of the aircraft on the lawn outside the Pentagon. Parts of the plane, including engine parts and landing gear, were photographed inside the building.
As supposed evidence for its missile theory, Loose Change also claims that the aircraft debris in the Pentagon attack would have had to “pass through nine feet [three meters] of steel-reinforced concrete” – an unlikely occurrence. It obtained this figure by counting two outer walls each for the Pentagon’s E Ring, D Ring and C Ring.
But, as acknowledged even by other conspiracy theorists, no outer walls separate the C, D and E rings on the Pentagon’s lower two levels. The plane penetrated only two outside walls – the Pentagon’s exterior wall and the inner wall of the C Ring.
In its section examining the attack on the World Trade Center, Loose Change includes several statements by people who say they heard secondary explosions in the buildings, which the video interprets as evidence that the buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition. But this ignores the commonsense explanation that secondary explosions could have been caused by vaporized fuel or electrical short-circuits in the severely damaged buildings. Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the towers that day would have been impossible.
Loose Change also contains a great deal of footage from the initial live broadcasts of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, when there was enormous confusion about exactly what had happened. It treats statements made at this time as if they represent reasoned judgments, not impromptu, often poorly thought-through misimpressions and uninformed speculation.
With regard to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Loose Change claims that it is impossible that passengers on the flight made cell phone calls. It repeats a claim that cell phones supposedly have less than a 1 percent chance of succeeding at 9,750 meters (32,000 feet), the normal cruising al ude for commercial airliners.
But communications experts state that cell phone conversations at such al udes are quite possible. Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at CTIA-The Wireless Association, said, “cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet [10,670 meters].” Paul Guckian, vice president of engineering for cell phone maker Qualcomm, stated, “at the al ude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet [9,145 to 10,670 meters], [some] phones would still get a signal.” (Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics, pp. 83-84.)
In fact, one cell phone conversation from Flight 93 was introduced into evidence at the trial of Zaccarias Moussaoui. Listen to the 45-second message left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine. Click on the “Lyles” file icon on the far left of the bottom row in the link.
In sum, Loose Change is researched very shoddily, making numerous mistakes of fact and judgment. Nevertheless, this has not prevented it from becoming extraordinarily popular.
This video produces a gut reaction that the producers wanted, and has made them a good chunk of money in the process.
The fact that it is so easily shown to be shoddy and ridden with errors makes even other conspiracy theorists su ious of it, as being probably planted by the government itself to discredit the movement as a whole.
There are better things to get worked up over.
Good work, this film will bring down the evil empire. The explosions sequence blows you away, eh? The Pentagon sequence is illuminating, the intro kicks ass, and the bin Laden stuff at the end is awesome!
Here's a site with lots of great 9/11 links:
www.barrettforcongress.us
It has links to other films and videos, look down the right hand column.
"explosions" like this?
And since you've already made it known on this site that posting on spurstalk.com does indeed make a difference in American politics, I'm sure they'll start said investigation immediately.
Presenting theories that a missile hit the Pentagon or that military planes hit the towers is just plain stupid.....don't give the 911 faith crowd material to use against you....make them prove their case first...let's start with WTC7...
Or maybe you will try to use the "freefall" bit?
Forums like this do make a difference...that's why Republicans will lose Congressional seats again in 08 and possibly the Presidency too...they don't understand the new media...
Don't expect people like Galileo to actually understand what really caused the collapse of the towers...
Show me using intergral calculus how the towers fell under 1 minute again...
..yeah, I thought so...
or maybe we could simply debunk the top 7 consipiracy theories in less than a minute...
...integral calculus like the formula for kinetic energy Dan?
Been there, done that. You have yet to find any error, after 60+pages of posts in the other thread.
If you're going to try to convince people that explosions weren't heard in the Twin Towers, then your gonna lose!
Doufass, Loose Change does not rely on McQueene, it relies on live network footage with real people saying they heard explosions.
Great work, Nbaden! You've got it!
People heard all sorts of explosions. I probably would have heard explosions if I had been there.
Such noises would be expected under ANY collapse.
Random is totally wasting his time trying to convince the kooks. The kooks don't really believe this nonsense, they just believe that the nonsense will somehow affect change. They are nihilist.
I've heard explosions in my neighborhood 4 times in the past year. All of them were due to problems with the power lines. Very reasonable that a collapsing/burning building would experience explosions in its electrical system or any number of other internal systems.
doufass, the people on the network vidoes heard the explosions before the towers fell.
Explosives cause explosions!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
