Seeking Answers and Opinions

Okay, its kind of a weird tittle for the thread, but I couldn't think what else to name it.

As an ATS member, I have looked at all of the boards from time to time. Recently, I have kept on hearing about this shocking video: Loose Change. I had never seen it, so I went over to google to find out some info on it. In the end, I ended up watching this:

video.google.com...

I found it rather compelling. I don't usally hang around 9/11 topics, but this video I found have some compelling points and evidence. Its the '2nd' edition of Loose Change.

What I want to know for all you people who have watched it, and who haven't is:

Was this video interesting and compelling enough to give you second thoughts, reconsider you belief or opinion, or change your view on the 9/11 attacks completely.

It basically turned my knowledge upside down. I had seen website, and reports, but this video put it together well.

I encourage people to watch it and share their view, or if they have already seen that or a similar video, post their reactions and thoughts.

Thanks
truth_seeker3

reply to post by truth_seeker3


There's a "Final Cut" to Loose Change also, but I haven't watched it. I've only seen the 2nd edition mentioned in your post. As for the film itself, it includes some factual errors, but I would definitely agree many of the questions asked NEED to be answered by the government.

I think the Loose Change crew does the best job on the Pentagon, but they do not go into enough depth about the destruction of the Twin Towers. There is a lot of evidence they did not include in the 2nd edition. What I think is really interesting about Loose Change is how they claim(and show some evidence) that Flight 93 actually landed in Cleavland. That was the best part of Loose Change, in my opinion.

They also did not cover fake planes, but Dylan Avery has made other videos showing why he(or they) think there was no planes, or that the "planes" had missiles attached...I'm still not sure what he was trying to say in those videos. And I don't know why they did not include any info on those matters in Loose Change.

All in all, Loose Change is a good film that asks some good questions.

If Loose Change interested you, I recommend watching Richard Gage's DVD "9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction" which shows a lot of hard evidence of controlled demolition that Loose Change does not include.

You can find the DVD on his website(or on torrent sites):
www.ae911truth.org...

Since I mentioned something about it, I also recommend "September Clues Part 1-9 and Epilogue" and "9/11 Taboo Part 1-4". Those two will really "turn your knowledge upside down."

September Clues Part 1:
www.youtube.com...

9/11 Taboo Part 1
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by truth_seeker3


I watched Loose Change after I watched 9/11 Mysteries. I got alot more out of 911 Mysteries....awesome video and very well done.

David Ray Griffin (author of The New Pearl Harbor) called it the best of the 9/11 movies.

reply to post by Niobis


Thanks for the comments, and for the links. I'll have a look at those, I find them interesting.

truth_seeker3

Watch "screw loose change" too, might turn your knowledge the right way up again
Where september clues isnt pure BS its simply dishonest ("these 2 camera angles are the same, no they dont look completely different")

havent seen the taboo thingy yet, watching now.

...

And now i am done *yawn*
Paralax doesnt happen in real life, yeah...
If i turn up the video compression really, really high and you squint your eyes it you cant see the impact very clearly (*gasp*)
Cars running into other cars behave different than boeings flying into buildings (No really?)
And those silly terrorists! They exceeded the savety limits! I mean gosh! flying like that could have gotten them all killed .... no wait...



[edit on 1-9-2008 by debunky]

Originally posted by debunky
Where september clues isnt pure BS its simply dishonest ("these 2 camera angles are the same, no they dont look completely different")

CBS's and NBC's backdrop were exactly the same! Watch Part 9 where he includes proportions to those angles. It's not dishonesty, it's a simple fact.

Cars running into other cars behave different than boeings flying into buildings (No really?)

While that may be true, the fact still remains the same--the Laws of Motion are broken in all the melting "plane" videos. We would have seen at least one part of the plane(if not many parts) falling to the ground, in the opposite direction of the impact.

And those silly terrorists! They exceeded the savety limits! I mean gosh! flying like that could have gotten them all killed .... no wait...

It's not a matter of "could", it would have gotten them killed because the plane would rip apart in mid-air if it was flying at the speeds we are told. The same is true for Flight 77. With the huge descending turn it allegedly made, it would have dropped out of the sky like a rock. Ask some pilots, they will tell you the same thing.

While that may be true, the fact still remains the same--the Laws of Motion are broken in all the melting "plane" videos. We would have seen at least one part of the plane(if not many parts) falling to the ground, in the opposite direction of the impact.

And there were plenty of pieces of airplane that landed on the ground..small pieces. Or are you another person that believes that the plane should have just bounced off and fallen to the ground??

The Laws of Motion (im guessing you mean Newton's Laws...

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it

Nope, this was not broken.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Doesnt apply to a jet crashing into the WTC.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

And this one, is the one that I think really confuses you. You appear to assume that the plane should have been spit back out the hole in came through....sorry does not work that way.

CBS's and NBC's backdrop were exactly the same! Watch Part 9 where he includes proportions to those angles. It's not dishonesty, it's a simple fact.

Maybe because they were both fliming from the same vantage point?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And there were plenty of pieces of airplane that landed on the ground..small pieces. Or are you another person that believes that the plane should have just bounced off and fallen to the ground??

Where are those pieces you talk about? I'd love to see a picture, a video, anything! The "amateur" videos show the entire plane being consumed by the building. I'm not talking about the pieces that "exited" the building(which were planted). We should have seen something fall away from the impact area. Where is that debris?

I.... Nope, this was not broken.

Yes, it was. There was absolutely NO deceleration when the nose of the "plane" hit the building...NONE!

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

And this one, is the one that I think really confuses you. You appear to assume that the plane should have been spit back out the hole in came through....sorry does not work that way.

When did I say the plane should have been spit out? I said at least one part of the plane, and that includes the wings and tail, to be exerted in the opposite direction. Which WAS violated on 9/11. We could expect the engines to (maybe) puncture the building, but not the tail. The steel exterior of the Twin Towers was much stronger than an aluminum plane.

Maybe because they were both fliming from the same vantage point?

Umm, no they wasn't. Do a little more research because they don't even claim to be filming from the same place. Your claim isn't even logical! How would it be possible for two helicopters to be in the same location at the same time? To be at the same vantage point, they'd have to be using the same camera.

On 9/11, CBS and NBC were filming from two different "locations" from two different helicopters. Their locations were similar, but NOT the same, so in no way could the angles be the same. They simply used the same backdrop.

Hell, if they were at the same location why is the Empire State Building on the right side of the screen in the CBS footage and on the left side of the screen in the NBC footage? The odds of the proportions being exactly the same from two different locations, are ZERO to NONE!

paralax. Objects close by "move more" then those further away. Go outside niobis. Take a mountain and a tree. By moving yourself you can position the tree *everywhere* relative to the mointain you like.

Also notice how in the very beginning of september clues part 9 the author takes some (highly professional) photos of NY and compares them to (highly compressed) videos. His conclusion: they dont look the same. Well duh. apples and oranges often have different colours. Thats dishonesty right there.


[edit on 2-9-2008 by debunky]

reply to debunky

No matter! Two different cameras from two different choppers will not and cannot have the exact same background. There would be and should be even the slightest difference.

Not all the pictures he shows are “highly professional”. A cheap digital camera will take better quality pictures than the pictures we seen from the media on 9/11.

Aside from the obviously absurd perspectives, you're saying it was perfectly normal for the Verrazzano bridge to move by itself, not only once, but TWICE? Not to mention the pillars are huge compared to reality.

The mistakes made by the media are numerous. The obviousness of 'layering' is...well just that-way too obvious. How would you explain the outline around the towers if the media coverage is real views of Manhattan? Or how about the missing choppers in many of the “live” coverage videos?

reply to post by truth_seeker3


It depends upon whether you want the truth or the troof.

At CT Sites you'll find the troof, at legitimate rational sites you'll find the truth.

www.911myths.com...

screwloosechange.xbehome.com...

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by Reheat
At CT Sites you'll find the troof, at legitimate rational sites you'll find the truth.

And at media sites you'll find reasonable doub about the official story.


[edit on 6-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Niobis
reply to debunky

No matter! Two different cameras from two different choppers will not and cannot have the exact same background. There would be and should be even the slightest difference.

Not all the pictures he shows are “highly professional”. A cheap digital camera will take better quality pictures than the pictures we seen from the media on 9/11.

Aside from the obviously absurd perspectives, you're saying it was perfectly normal for the Verrazzano bridge to move by itself, not only once, but TWICE? Not to mention the pillars are huge compared to reality.

The mistakes made by the media are numerous. The obviousness of 'layering' is...well just that-way too obvious. How would you explain the outline around the towers if the media coverage is real views of Manhattan? Or how about the missing choppers in many of the “live” coverage videos?

At least you agree that some of the pictures where done by pros (if not all) and i agree with you, some are "ordinary good pictures" The one arial view from the south though is something you could sell for quite some money (and propably was)

The thing is that he compares *Photos* to *video*. Not the same thing. Some of the photos propably even done with non digital cameras.

Zoom: It this distorts the image. It is *not* the same as getting closer. He even gives you the correct solution to the problem: the foreground doesnt move, the farther away the more it moves. paralax+zoom in action, nothing more.

Choppers: you cant tell from the shots where they should be in another shot. Beeing that cameras can zoom all you can tell is on wich side of the towers it would be. How far away? anybodys guess.

Perspective: Whenever this author claims that an perspecitve is different or the same as the other look for yourself and dont take his word for it. Slight differences that warrant a "different" in one shot where it suits his argument are "close enough" when that is what he needs. Best is too look for what parts of the towers you can see and what not. though like any good magician he tries to draw your attention away from those. Dont fall for it.

From: www.911missinglinks.com...

"Now you will discover the definitive truth about 9/11 and learn why even the most popular movies on the subject have failed to address the evidence exhaustively presented in this video. The facts will make it abundantly clear that the so-called 9/11 “Truth” movement has been infiltrated and is ultimately controlled by the same criminals group who masterminded the attacks. As they say, 'if you want to control the dissent you lead the dissent.' Utilizing evidence from the FBI, CIA, NSA, US Armed Forces Intelligence sectors, Foreign Intelligence organizations, local law enforcement agencies and independent investigators, Missing Links goes where no other 9/11 video has dared to."

See the video

www.911missinglinks.com...