Only seen it since you mentioned it To be fair I have never watched loose change, the fella may have a few interesting points but he, like Dawkins, makes a rubbish debater so I distance myself from it. Pretty much every subject matter has been covered im sure already e.g. the almost impossible apporach angle for an inexperienced pilot to utilise in targeting the Pentagon, disappearance of nearly any trace of a plane in Ohio, removal and destruction of steel WTC beams before any forensic examination, Tower 1 & 2 and to a much greater extent, considering the occupants, Tower 7s freefall footprint collapse, finding of tiny balls of rapidly cooled what used to be molten steel throughout the dust. Then incredible "circumstancial" evidence (one of the biggest walls they hide behind) e.g. brand new insurance policy taken out on the buildings, disappearance of gold, disabling of air defence networkk for "exercises" that day etc etc. in fairness im on the phone app as im about to go out and this post has taken considerable effort, il come back to this on another day
I will say this, the whole 9/11 debate is exactly what they want. Like with pearl harbour, gulf of tonkin, artificial market collapses of 30s and today. They are all part of a much bigger picture. People are focusing on this aspect of it too sprecifically and letting the rest of it past them by.
Now i'm confused Jacky, I said it was a pile of ****e and you implied it was not, despite never having seen it? Maybe you should watch it when you have time and maybe you will spot the obvious flaws too.
“Loose Change” is very popular with the public, but some people within the “911 Truth Movement” believe it is damaging to their cause because the claims it makes are so extreme: • U.S. air defenses were ordered to “stand down” on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed. • Prior to 9/11 the rules of engagement were changed to require permission from the Secretary of Defense before shooting down a threatening aircraft. • An unusual number of war games were deliberately held on 9/11 to occupy and confuse potential defenders. • Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 wreckage or human remains were re4 covered and identified there. It disappeared and no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or its passengers. The Pentagon was probably struck by a smaller military plane or a missile. • Flight 93 did not crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to storm the cockpit. No aircraft wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified there. Instead, flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland where its passengers were removed and presumably killed. That plane may have contained not only flight 93’s passengers, but all the passengers from the other three planes as well. The actual plane, tail number N591UA, was still in use as of 2003. • None of the many calls made by passengers on the hijacked aircraft were real. All the calls were perfectly faked by the conspirators using “voice-morphing” technology. The fakes occurred in real time as events unfolded, and were good enough to fool all the relatives of the “alleged” callers. • At least 9 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11. • al Qaeda had no role in the attacks. A video of bin Laden admitting his involvement was faked. • World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by pre-planted explosive devices. Additional explosive devices blew up in the Twin Towers prior to the demolition charges going off. The towers did not collapse due to structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft striking them. Fires were not severe in the towers. WTC 7 sustained slight structural damage and fires. • One of the cleanup contractors at the WTC, Controlled Demolitions Inc., may have been involved in the WTC’s destruction, as well as in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995. CDI executed an “unexplained” demolition of two 400-foot gas tanks in NYC in June, 2001. • No inspection was allowed of WTC debris. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered all potential evidence to be removed from the site. • Investors with advance knowledge of 9/11 made millions in the stock market. • A document produced by prominent Neocons in 2000 called for a “New Pearl Harbor.” • Prominent U.S. politicians and military personnel avoided air travel on and before 9/11. • Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the World Trade Center, profited by over insuring his buildings. • George W. Bush’s brother Marvin ran WTC security operations. • $166.8 billion in gold was stolen from the vaults beneath the World Trade Center. • No real investigation of the causes of the attacks was done. All of these claims made in “Loose Change” are false. Many of the claims are easily disproved with just a few minutes of web searching. What do Avery, Rowe and Bermas do with the towering mountain of evidence that comprehensively refutes their claims? They ignore it. They don’t acknowledge that such evidence exists. They don’t acknowledge the work done by thousands of investigators. They publish rumors gleaned from conspiracy websites as facts, but they refuse to talk to any of the thousands of experts who were at any of the scenes, or who worked behind the scenes analyzing evidence. Instead, they deny that any “real” investigation took place. http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf
What is the bigger picture though? A lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all to happy to tell us what didn't happen, but not so much what actually did happen.
I'm not implying that Jacky does that but all Truthers employ that tactic. They skirt around the issue without telling you their opinion on why and how it was actually carried out, because by nailing their colours to the mast they leave themselves open to simple rebutalls using "proof" and "Facts"
I've just read the entire thread, weighed up all the points and evidence provided and I conclude that you are all gay.
You make some good points there but you hang you arguement on the the statement "but there is some evidence that suggests the possibility of thermite", but the is also the "possibility" of the buildings being brought weakened by the initial impact and further weakened (not melted) by the internal fires. With there being more evidence for the plane/fire scenario (i.e. we all saw the planes and the fires) and being a firm believer in Occum's Razor the decision is obvious to me. By the way you are right that the building didn't freefall, the central core of the building (ie the lift shaft) which gives the bulidubng the majority of its strenght (like a human spine) was not as badly damaged as the load bearing members on the outer sections, hence why it fell the way it did. The convential way of demolition would be to remove the central core as well as the outer members so if you are right about the uncinvential techniques used they are very uncinvential indeed!!
If Governments can cover up a jet airliner vanishing into thin air then anything is possible. 9/11 was a conspiracy. And that is a FACT.
