It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Loose Change vs. Loose Change Second Edition

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 09:22 PM
First, I'm new so I apologize if this has already been addressed.
What prompted the remaking of Loose Change? Did the filmmakers give an official reason?
The Second Edition is alot more credible and I know the first version took alot of heat for the pod stuff etc.. They were, in some circles, being accused of being disinformation moles. The Second edition seems to be an effort to prove they aren't Gubmint ponies and I'm wondering if they had an explaination for the remake.
Although I still have reservations about some of the stuff presented, it is alot less "kookified" than the original.

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:57 AM
I don't think this topic was already adressed here. As far as I know ther was no official explanation about creation of the second edition.

Official statement was that the pod stuff wasn't dumped because the creators do not believe in pod theory, they said that didn't have enough space in documentary for it (a bit suspicious argument if you ask me).

Disinfo mole? Like in conspiracy documentary?
Can you explain it?

From my point of view it is a pity that the second edition is still too much biased as the first edition and it's probably not optimal for mainstream audience (it starts with northwoods, etc.)

[edit on 2006-1-24 by zer69]

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:30 AM
I always loved the pod theory.
I never knew that wheel wells were actually missile pods.

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:39 AM
Loose Change 2nd Edition is absolutely brillant and much more better than the first one. It is an absolute smoking gun. As the filmmakers say : "IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY AMERICAN TO VIEW THIS FILM!". And we should change "American" by "people", because we are ALL concerned.

Check this page to see the numerous evidences :

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:44 AM
Oh man, I already found holes in their "evidence."

This left 14 fighters defending the United States.
That line is total BS. There were 7 Air National Guard bases with Alert Fighters, for a total of 21 fighters. There would be 21 if there were exercises going on or not. Alert fighters NEVER participate in an exercise, even if it's the entire wing as part of the drill. They are excluded from ALL exercises, NO MATTER WHAT.

I'll have to wait a little while to finish looking it over. Seems the page stopped responding.

[edit on 1/24/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:11 AM

Seems the page stopped responding.

Not to sound paraniod in anyway, and I'm sure it's coincidental but amusing nonetheless....
I had more downtime trying to research this stuff than any other time I've ever been in the internet.
At one point for over 3 hrs, Google would only respond to my searches with "There's been an error...."
It'll start messing with your head, considering what you're looking up.

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:16 AM
Ok, since it's responding again, let's look at a couple things at the Pentagon they show.

On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet en route to Houston to pick up George Bush Senior clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby Airport.

Let's take a look at the two planes involved here. First, we have the Bizjet from Huston. A Gulfstream II buisness jet. Take off weight is 65,500 pounds. Max takeoff weight for a 757 is over 200,000 pounds. A GII carries 19 people max. A 757 carries around 200.

For reference, here are some pics. Take a look at the wings, and tell me which do YOU think would survive an impact with a 250 pound pole.

Gulfsteram II
Boeing 757

Now, you have a skinny little wing on the GII, because there's not a lot of weight to carry on it, as compared to a thicker fat wing on the 757, to carry those engines. Which do you think would survive an impact with a lightpole? Just take a while guess here.

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:51 AM
I'm not one to argue for the sake of it like some but....

I dont know what lamp post's (light poles) are made of in the US but over here they a f'kin heavy duty , I would suspect that they would do considerable damage to a aluminium skinned object of any sort.

Surely hitting more than one light poles would alter or change the course of the plane slightly, maybe even bring it down after hitting several, It may of still hit the pentagon but only after hitting the deck first and sliding into it, just an observation.

And if it was travelling as fast and as low as reported then it would of moved lighter pieces of traffic on the road it flew over would it not? and by moved I mean blown over/off road. How loud are 4 engines that size flat out? enough to damage everyone in the close vacinity's hearing? traffic controllers and the like wear ear defenders when shuffling planes around on the ground! are there any links to reports of above events?

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:52 AM
They're simply aluminum. The total weight of the pole including the base and equipment inside it is about 250 pounds. You're talking a 200,000 pound airplane, travelling at 500 mph, vs a 250 pound pole designed to shear off it something hits it. It's not going to knock the plane off course if it hits it. If the wing hits it then it will cause some damage, but it's not going to yank the plane off course.

[edit on 1/24/2006 by Zaphod58]


log in