I'm not sure what took me so long... I guess I started to research other subjects like the NWO, Secret Societies, Hollywood symbolism, the economy and current politics... but for some reason I skipped out on Final Cut because I felt it was information that I already knew... While most of the information in the film I was currently aware of... I've never seen a better movie compile it all together and pretty much force the viewer to question the events of that day.

I don't know how anybody can watch this movie and not have an eyebrow raised. It really boggles my mind.

I also like how they focused on the air not being fit to breath, and the lies surrounding this event as well.

Wow... What a masterpiece...

The only problem with the film is that it doesn't really tie in to how Israel might of played a roll in all this mess... But I guess it's wise to leave them out of it when discussing the subject.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Doomsday 2029]

Final Cut Loose Change is great but don't forget Core of Corruption and 911 Mysteries and Zero -- the French expose and Jason Bermas' later films which are excellent...

Yeah they did a bang up job on loose change final cut. I also agree that even if you're on the fence about this issue, loose change should get people asking some questions.

They have a point that even without the buildings as evidence, there is still enough odd occurrences that a new investigation with no limits from "executive privileged" should limit it. Unfortunately most physical evidence has been destroyed.

Introduce people to loose change.

Yes I think its a core video, one of the best in its category. They did a fanatastic job, and have reached countless people in this world. Its worth handing out copies locally.

Of course that Michael Ruppert lecture in Oregon was the original, first 911 conspiracy vid -- we made hundreds of copies locally and passed it out.

Originally posted by oppaperclip
Yeah they did a bang up job on loose change final cut. I also agree that even if you're on the fence about this issue, loose change should get people asking some questions.

Yeah, well, here's a question that Loose Change is getting me to ask- why did they lie and say the emergency personnel carrying that blue triage tent into the Pentagon attack site was really some mysterious covered object being carried out from the Pentagon site? Oh, and here's another one- why did they use blurry, grainy videos taken a mile away to try and claim the planes that hit the towers had missile pods when all the close up videos showed no such thing?

...and most importantly, why should we believe the crap that some college kid put together in his dorm room when he himself retracted it...TWICE?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by oppaperclip
Yeah they did a bang up job on loose change final cut. I also agree that even if you're on the fence about this issue, loose change should get people asking some questions.

Yeah, well, here's a question that Loose Change is getting me to ask- why did they lie and say the emergency personnel carrying that blue triage tent into the Pentagon attack site was really some mysterious covered object being carried out from the Pentagon site? Oh, and here's another one- why did they use blurry, grainy videos taken a mile away to try and claim the planes that hit the towers had missile pods when all the close up videos showed no such thing?

...and most importantly, why should we believe the crap that some college kid put together in his dorm room when he himself retracted it...TWICE?

Again... these guys have claimed to be wrong about some of the information they presented in their first two films.

I don't recall the blue tarp being presented in the Final Cut film (pentagon)... but I could be wrong.

They don't focus on the planes that hit the towers had missile pods ""when all the close up videos showed no such thing"".

And I don't care who put this film together... If it was Albert Einstein or some college kid: The film speaks for it's self.... It clearly shows That no real investigation ever took place... So I guess WE THE PEOPLE are left to investigate 9/11 for ourselves.

If you think the Loose Change kids made up a few lies up in their film... and this upsets you?... then how do you feel about the government lies?

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
They don't focus on the planes that hit the towers had missile pods ""when all the close up videos showed no such thing"".

That's actually the major flaw with Loose Change. They don't focus on ANY single conspriacy theory. All it does is throw out a blizzard of conspriacy claims from "missile pods" to "flight 93 landing in Ohio" to even how it's suspicious how some pre-9/11 gov't report on terrorism had the WTC on the cover. Apparently Dylan Avery had been living in a cave and didn't know the WTC was attacked by terrorists in 1993.

The reason they don't focus on any one conspiracy is obvious- despite the "blatantly a conspiracy" you're all but getting into fistfights among yourselves over what the "blatantly a conspriacy" even is. All they're doing is connecting unrelated dots to form the picture they themselves want to see.

And I don't care who put this film together... If it was Albert Einstein or some college kid: The film speaks for it's self.... It clearly shows That no real investigation ever took place... So I guess WE THE PEOPLE are left to investigate 9/11 for ourselves.

If you think the Loose Change kids made up a few lies up in their film... and this upsets you?... then how do you feel about the government lies?

The only lies I'm aware of are the false accusations being made up by the damned fool conspiracy web sites exactly like Loose Change that say the gov't is lying. How can there be any investigation of some stand down order when there wasn't never any stand down order to begin with? How can the "flight 93 being shot down" be investigated when the Air Force admitted they were hunting flight 93 and would have destroyed it if they had found it?

Give me an example of a gov't lie in question, please...and I mean a concrete lie, not some unsubstanciated "Bin Laden has bad kidneys" internet rumor that con artist David Ray Griffin is spreading or some long ago retracted "the hijackers are alive" news report Dylan Avery is pretending hasn't been retracted.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Give me an example of a gov't lie in question, please...and I mean a concrete lie, not some unsubstanciated "Bin Laden has bad kidneys" internet rumor that con artist David Ray Griffin is spreading or some long ago retracted "the hijackers are alive" news report Dylan Avery is pretending hasn't been retracted.

G.W. witnessed the first plane hit the building.
Rumsfeld said flight 93 was shot down.
Rumsfeld said a missile hit the Pentagon.
Rice claimed no one had imagined planes being used as weapons.
Rice claimed they had no warning of an attack.
NIST originally claimed there was no freefall in regard to WTC 7.
Saddam was in cahoots with the people that attacked us.


I can go on and on but you only asked for one lie, right?

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

I'm sorry that you continue attacking non supporters of the OS and miss the point entirely.

You know, I've noticed an interesting phenomena with your side. If you go back and reread my posts closely yopu will see that I do NOT insult or attack non supporters here. My posts 100% involve the con artists behind those internet web sites and the blatantly false information they're putting out, and yet with every post I make against Dylan Avery, et al, you insist that I'm actually attacking you. It's almost as if you emotionally identify yourselves with these conspriacy claims so strongly that you perceive any attack on them or the web sites that promote them as a personal attack upon yourselves.

Why is it that when you insult Bush, the gov't, NIST, or whoever that I don't likewise see it as a personal attack upon me? For that matter, why is it that I don't particularly care when/if you DO make a personal attack upon me, as all I care about is whether or not you can show me that the material I post is wrong?

This tells me there's more of an ideology at work here then any desire to investigate the truth.

Final Cut doesn't focus on a specific conspiracy because that is not it's intention. The intention of the documentary is to show the facts omitted from the official story. That in itself is enough to prove the OS is not truthful. When you write a supposed accurate account of an event but leave out facts that would dispute that story, there is a conspiracy. To summarize the Final Cut proves the OS is not truthful.

Not true. My point is that the Final Cut has no credibility becuase the producer Dylan Avery has himself admitted that many of the conspiracy claims he's been circulating to "show the facts omitted from the official story" were false. Then, his revised second version meant to remove the false information only turned out to be false itself, so he released a third version. No person with any ability of critical analysis will take seriously any material coming from someone who admits himself that he's a poor researcher.

Tell me, when Dylan Avery interprets blurry footage taken from a long distance away of UA175 to be evidence of missile pods, while delibearely ignoring all the 100 other crystal clear videos that show no such thing, how then does this NOT satisfy your criteria of "When you write a supposed accurate account of an event but leave out facts that would dispute that story, there is a conspiracy"? Those are your words, after all, not mine.

One thing guys..... Loose Change The Final Cut was made in 2007 right? The better one with more evidence would be the one made in 2009, Loose Change 9/11 An American Coup.

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveMy point is that the Final Cut has no credibility becuase the producer Dylan Avery has himself admitted that many of the conspiracy claims he's been circulating to "show the facts omitted from the official story" were false.

I never have considered Dylan Avery as either creditable or not creditable. He presented evidence that and speculation surrounding that evidence. If he admitted to misreporting facts that later were proven wrong then that has a lot of creditability in my mind. Can you show me this evidence where he admits the whole of these facts were intentionally misrepresented?

Tell me, when Dylan Avery interprets blurry footage taken from a long distance away of UA175 to be evidence of missile pods, while delibearely ignoring all the 100 other crystal clear videos that show no such thing, how then does this NOT satisfy your criteria of "When you write a supposed accurate account of an event but leave out facts that would dispute that story, there is a conspiracy"? Those are your words, after all, not mine.

I guess I have never seen these 100's of crystal clear pictures. I thought only roughly 6 frames of film was the only thing released. Can you show me the evidence of these crystal clear pictures?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
G.W. witnessed the first plane hit the building.
Rumsfeld said flight 93 was shot down.
Rumsfeld said a missile hit the Pentagon.
Rice claimed no one had imagined planes being used as weapons.
Rice claimed they had no warning of an attack.
NIST originally claimed there was no freefall in regard to WTC 7.
Saddam was in cahoots with the people that attacked us.

I can go on and on but you only asked for one lie, right?

I notice that every single one of those are either off the cuff remarks from individuals or creative interpretations by others, so the only one who's elevating them to "official government statement" status is you.

So you are going to change the definition of a lie? "What G.W. meant to say was blah blah blah."

It does not matter one bit what anyone meant to say. A lie is about what they did say! You asked -

Give me an example of a gov't lie in question, please...and I mean a concrete lie

I gave you some. You can not explain them away. All you can do is spin them in some fantasy way in order to fit what you what them to have meant. You asked for lies, not an example of something someone said that you think really meant something else.

G.W. Said he saw the first plane hit the building. He said he was watching a tv before he want in to read to the kids, saw it happen on the news. You can tell me what you think he meant to say all you like but that does not change the fact that he told a lie. He said he saw it on television before he went into the classroom. LIE.

Rumsfeld SAID a missile hit the pentagon and that 93 was shot down. You can interpret them any way you like but a missile is a missile and shot down is far from flew into the ground.

I can go on in this fashion explaining why each of these is actually a statement and a lie but I think you get the picture here.

Now, please try explaining to me how what they said was not a lie without telling me what you wish to think they may have meant.

Respectfully to the OP,

I watch it and all of the previous versions over the years. I'll say this about Loose Change:

It remains nothing more than slick editing and a half truth filled video of distorted scenarios that are seemingly answered with a series of video edits cut in order to show what they want to rather in what they should. There is nothing in this video that could be used as evidence in any real investigation that many of us want. In fact the video is an attempt to demonstrate culpability that actually demonstrates many inaccuracies & distortions of the truth along with outright lies. The video over the years has evolved into what it is by what others speculate about 911 then the producers have distorted the video to fit into these theory. Those of us who what the truth about 911 would prefer more concrete proof than shady blurred vids & stills that fit into the perimeters of evidence that could be used in a real investigation rather than some misinformed teen's spare time antics.

Those of you (including myself) who seek the truth would fair better to place your enthusiasm as well as your backing into something more substantial than "loose change". Just my opinion, you do not have to nor do I expect everyone to agree with it.

Take care...Mike

spelling

[edit on 3/15/2010 by mikelee]