When you really find something wrong, then ask the questions.

No, the point of my post is to find out if anything said has been refuted, because I myself don't have the information or the means to look at anything critically. The people who have been involved in the 9/11 discussion will know more about this than I, so I'd like them to share what they know about this video. Personally, I find nothing wrong with it except the comparison of the burning times and collapse of the towers, to the burning and collapse of other towers around the world. This comparison simply doesn't make any sense and should be ommitted from the video. I'm pretty much conviced that the incident was carefully planned and that the offical report is a lie. If someone can tell me that parts are incorrect, then I'd like to know.

I just saw this thread...
Loose Change was wrong about the b-52 hitting the empire state building. It was actually a B-25, a much smaller plane.

I'm sure that someone could point out something "wrong" about every single statement made on that documentary, or any other, without exception.

It helps to actually be intelligent. Otherwise you're pretty screwed.

Good luck.

It's very simple guys. I've seen an interesting video, and I've come back to a place that has an entire forum and research team devoted to the analyzation of the 9/11 attacks. The people here will obviously know more about this than I will, so I'm asking for them to lend me their knowledge on a video that most should be familiar with. What I don't need are stupid comments insulting my intelligence by posters who have little to contribute besides their bad attitude. I'm not about to let morons take up any more of my time, so you're better off leaving this thread.

The video stills released from the government were obviously manipulated to propagate this myth.

Are you referring to this video? I watched through it again, and couldn't find any instance where altering could have taken place in the pentagon stills. Apparently only 4-5 photos were released by the government, and they showed neither a plane nor a missile. The point was that something was being covered up, and that thing could be a missile.

Thanks OverEZ, for giving one of two genuine replies.

Zhang,
i think the 911 arguments go around in circles and very rarely will anything really be debunked. There are arguments for and against most things. No quick answers unfortnately.

I can tell you that at the beginning of Loose Change they make a foolish mistake, which doesnt bode well for their depth of thought they put into the research. Im not a fan of Loose change personally but it is better than nothing.

The mistake at the start imo, is saying that the aircraft "fired a missile at WTC seconds before impact" which is just bull.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by AdamJ]

yeah, that particular part wasn't too convincing. Maybe that should have been put in later after the more believable claims. As far as I can tell though, everything else seems to make sense besides the "burning time" comparison of the WTC vs. other buildings as I mentioned earlier. The author asks why the WTC collapsed after only an hour when other more structurally weak structures lasted 18 times that were left standing. The glaringly obvious difference between the WTC and any other building the the fact that the WTC was hit by a plane.

What are your general thoughts on the video, or more importantly on the entire situation? Are you convinced of a conspiracy or skeptic of the claims?

I hope you didn't take my post as an insult, Zhang, because I was being very sincere with that, and wasn't implying anything about your intelligence in particular. There's just a lot of total bullcrap floating around that on first whiff sounds very believable.

Originally posted by zhangmaster
As far as I can tell though, everything else seems to make sense besides the "burning time" comparison of the WTC vs. other buildings as I mentioned earlier. The author asks why the WTC collapsed after only an hour when other more structurally weak structures lasted 18 times that were left standing. The glaringly obvious difference between the WTC and any other building the the fact that the WTC was hit by a plane.

The plane damage wasn't as much as you might think. Less than 15% of the perimeter columns were knocked out in either tower, and likely a similarly minor (if not smaller) portion of core columns, since they were much thicker, spread out, and were only being assailed by already-broken-up plane parts. I think one government report states that only about 2 core columns out of 47 or so could've been knocked out, and only then if the engines made direct impact with columns, but I could be confusing this with another source.

Released NIST figures indicate that the structure would need about 75% column loss on any given floor, on average, for that floor to fail. So that means the fires would've had to have caused an additional 60% column failure or an equivalent in loss of integrity. It's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, for that to have occurred, given the nature, length, and intensity of the fires within those buildings.

Originally posted by AdamJ
The mistake at the start imo, is saying that the aircraft "fired a missile at WTC seconds before impact" which is just bull.

This is indeed in LooseChange, it comes from Dick Cheney himself, from an interview with Parade Magazine:

“Here we're talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.”

~ Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of War, 2001-10-12 Parade Magazine interview.

Freudian slip?

[edit on 16-2-2006 by shanti23]

I'm sorry zhangmaster, but you can't debunk the truth.

Which is why it's useless to waste your time even thinking about it.

I think I remember a website which debunked loose change (although it may have been another doc), which was absolutely pathetic, little or no arguements and misinformation.

Originally posted by zhangmaster
yeah, that particular part wasn't too convincing. Maybe that should have been put in later after the more believable claims. As far as I can tell though, everything else seems to make sense besides the "burning time" comparison of the WTC vs. other buildings as I mentioned earlier. The author asks why the WTC collapsed after only an hour when other more structurally weak structures lasted 18 times that were left standing. The glaringly obvious difference between the WTC and any other building the the fact that the WTC was hit by a plane.

What are your general thoughts on the video, or more importantly on the entire situation? Are you convinced of a conspiracy or skeptic of the claims?

It shouldnt have been in at all as it makes the video look childish when it is making very significant allegations.
There are lots of errors with what they say, and im not a fan of Loose Change because what happened on 911 was not a game or a joke and it was an extremely significant event in world history.

As far as i am concerned there is an obvious conspiracy going with 911, the evidence is overwhelming.

Im not a fan of the vid because i dont think it deals with something very important in a grown up enough way. Thats my personal opinion, i know loads of people love it.

Sorry Bsbray, your reply sounded very sarcastic, and I thought you were mocking the words under my name. Thanks for the information about the columns. I was going on what i saw in videos of the crash, and to me it just looks like more damage had to be done to that floor. If what you said is true, then Loose Change should really have added that bit of information in to bolster their claim.

Manincloak, it's not that I'm aiming to debunk it because I don't agree with the thought of a conspiracy, it's that I try to be skeptic of anything this large. I'm pretty much dead-set now on some sort of conspiracy, but before I commit myself completely to this view I'd like to know about opposing viewpoints. In the video, or in one similar I think Penn and Teller tried to 'debunk' it, but their method was to insult the integrity of the author and put guilt into Americans for ever considering the thought that the WTC could have been an inside job.

Adam, you mention that you don't like the video, but say that there is overwhelming evidence for the conspiracy. Is there something in particular that you watched or read that led you to this view, or was it by your own thinking?

Originally posted by zhangmaster
Sorry Bsbray, your reply sounded very sarcastic

No problem, man. I would have thought the same. And I do post sarcastic posts from time to time.

If what you said is true, then Loose Change should really have added that bit of information in to bolster their claim.

Yeah, but what can I say. I agree with AdamJ that Loose Change wasn't presented in a very "grown up" way.

The information itself, particularly the perimeter damage figures, comes directly from the FEMA Report released after 9/11. They give estimates on the exact number of severed columns in the region, from what can be seen in photos/video.

What would happen if you show Loose Change II on national TV and then do a Gallup poll on who would like to see the 9/11 investigation reopened?

70%? More?

You better believe it, it IS going to happen. 9/11 will be reinvestigated, and it will bring several houses of cards down, hell it may even start a civil war.