Loose Change Conspiracy Documentary

can you provide that site?? I'm interested in comparing the two. I'd like to make my own decision.
 
there's shorter version of something like this on ebaum's world somewhere. i personally think it's all crap, but it's still interesting. everyone loves a good conspiracy.
 
I watched it. It was interesting, but a lot of the conclusions in it were based on fairly speculative evidence. While I think that some of it is true, I don't agree with their final conclusion.
 
yeah idk it was well done. Personally there were way too many coincidences in there for it to be completely false. You can call it a production by radical liberal college students all you want, but I thought it was well done. A good variety of sources and explinations. Now I don't think that all of it is necessarily true, but most of the topics brought up were well supported and clarified. The part I was most intrigued by was the plane wreckage found in the pentagon. How would parts from a non-757 plane get into the wreckage of the pentagon, even if a 757 crashed into it? Apparently there is a website or documentary that disproves Loose Change, and I would like to see it so I can compare the 2.
 
imagine in 50 years they recover files dating and explaing the whole event.

imagine all the things FBI agents know that we don't

now thats something to think about
 
i used my downloading program to get the real one. You can buy the DVD for $7 from the site if you want.
 
im at 23 minutes.

1. this guy knows it stuff.

2. watch the pentongon put, around 12 minutes.

3. nice editing

4. changed my view

5. you should watch it
 
idk some dude about said theres a website that can disprove all of the stuff in the video. We're interested in seeing it because we'd like to comepare what they say to what the documentary says. I mean theres some really hard core evidence in the video. He put a lot of hard work in gathering info. And he ties it all nicely together. I am a very scientific person and i'd like to see how that shit is disproven.

on a side note... the director and producer, Dylan, was rejected from film school twice. Fuck that, that thing is great.
 
its not a greatly edited video at all.

but it does raise a LOT of interesting points
 
I was about to go to bed when i saw that link, the first part was too interesting to turn it off. 1 hour later im shocked, that movie was fucked, and im goin to bed
 
alright here is the only review on the movie I've found that tries to disprove it:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php

Now points he makes on certain things are agreeable to a point. He mentions a few of the things I was skeptical about in the film as well, such as that the pentagon should've had the same impact outline as the twin towers (but thats providing that they were of the same construction). So that arguement is pretty week. But over all I though the writer of that disproof acticle did not present factual information and data nearly as much as Avery did in his documentary.

And Ryno, I know you may think that it sucked, but you have to remember, that film was entirely freelance. Those guys made it on their own, on their own time in college. They collected an assload of film footage and other materials and compiled it with a little new stuff, like that flight school instructor, and created a very logical explanation.
 
its funny how it comes down to how the government could release the littlest amount of data and video to disprove everyone who is skeptical about the situation and they just flat out wont do it. what a bunch of pussies
 
So what is the point? The government could have done things a lot easier than that to get us to go to war, like just put bombs on planes and blame terrorists or pay people in the middle east to take credit. Why go through all that trouble. The video makes some huge points (missle attached to the planes that hit the WTC) just because of a shadow on a blurry video. I don't buy it.
 
I watched all of it, and i think its very moving, the Pentagon part is the most moving, cleary a commercial plane didnt hit that building, and i think you only need to prove one part of it to prove all of it. Its only logical, so say the WTC attacks were really terrorist attacks, why did the government tag the Pentagon with a cruise missle? because a plane didnt hit that building
 
I totally agree, the pentagon was the most convincing part of the film. I mean how would non-757 parts get in there? Let's say a 757 did crash into the pentagon, they obviously weren't storing those other plane parts in there. So how did they get there? Clearly those aren't part of a 757. And bowing is being a bunch of little bitches about releasing aircraft info. Not to mention all the govenment has to do is release more of the impact video, and they could prove this whole thing wrong. They show 5 frames and all you see is some fire.

I think stuff like this is very important because a "government unchallenged, is a government unchecked" (I believe that is socrates?). If you sit there and eat everything the government tells you, sooner or later they will take advantage of you.
 
I'm not saying that the video is bad; read my post i said it was very interesting. I just don't feel that because he collected a bunch of stuff that he is should get into filming school; he is a data collector, not a filmer.

Movie was good

He didnt film anything so why is he a good filmer?
 
All of that is incredible evidence. I think that whoever put together this video really did their homework. My only rub with it is this: how could anybody do that to their own people? If you asked me tomorrow to kill 3000 of my fellow americans to make lots of money and retain control of the country i'd say WTF NO WAY! You'd have to be one psycho sun of a bitch and i just dont see that kind of madness in the administration. Sure, they might not be perfect, but i dont think they are in the same league as Hitler or Stalen.
 
yea that video is fucking crazy. i watched it and now i have a better idea of what people were talking about when they thought it might be the gov. in on it. really thought provoking video, check it out if you have time.
 
well i dont know if they say this in the documentary.... but jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt the steal like they said, so it couldnt have brought them down like that, some scientist think maybe planted bombs *well reactions to create the heat needed* were used to cause the structure to collapse like that.
 
I cant get that vid out of my head. I think alot of the stuff they brought up was valid, but then again ive heard conspiracy theories on how we didnt really go to the moon cause the pictures were wierd and shit. But then i saw this NASA guy explain why the photos looked like that and he was definatly right, we went to the moon.

I dunno, i just HATE feeling ignorent to the truth. I mean, it just makes you wonder what else is unreal...
 
casualties of war. sure its disturbing but its a lot easier to kill a person when all you have to do is sign a peice of paper.
 
The theory that contradicts that is that the heat from the jet fuel weakened the structure and it collapsed under it's own weight. That doesn't make sense at all. The south tower burned for 19 minutes, and most of the fuel exploded outside of the tower anyways. Yet that was the first one to collapse.
 
Ok I haven't watched the video yet but I can already tell you a few things about this because many points that are going to be presented in this video have already been viewed over and prooved false (Pentagon attack). Not a commercial airliner that hit? Ok, now where'd that airplane go with all those people on it? It obvioulsy exsisted due to flight records and the actual people who rode that flight. Also you could say the government shot a giant net out of the White House roof and captured the airplane into an underground bunker to hold all those people in little cages to make it appear as if it was but except for the fact that people on the highway SAW THE 747 FLY RIGHT OVER THEIR HEADS AND INTO THE FUCKING PENTAGON! The eyewitnesses in the video who say otherwise where later proven to have unreliable accounts of what actually happened. Oh and those light posts, now how'd they get knocked over if there was no plane? My god! The government is at it again with those special movie effects! THOSE BASTARDS! And probobly the most incriminating evidence- the wreckage. Sure they say there was none found, or better yet, there was but it didn't belong to a commercial airliner but was rather painted to look like one. Wow, an incredible break through except that those parts in the wreckage, which there was a lot of, in spite of what the video has said has been proven to be a part of a commercial airliner. Don't believe that conspiracy shit, even though it's fun, because remember that the government has a few other security cameras filming the event happening but they where secured and not released due to investigation purposes.
 
Oh I'm going to make points on the video and send out another rant because so far, I'm not impressed and this guy seems too far amazed by the glare of light comming off the airplanes outer skin.
 
skiierman - "Not a commercial airliner that hit? Ok, now where'd that airplane go with all those people on it?"

With all the attention drawn towards the WTC's it could have flown accross the country landed at some military base and been killed and the plane dismantled.

skiierman - "except for the fact that people on the highway SAW THE 747 FLY RIGHT OVER THEIR HEADS AND INTO THE FUCKING PENTAGON! The eyewitnesses in the video who say otherwise where later proven to have unreliable accounts of what actually happened."

For one. I'm pretty sure it was a 757 that apparently crashed into the pentagon. Two. How were those people proved wrong, a "government investigation"? Lets take a look at how government intelligence is working now, even after the attacks. Hey wait, it isn't. They still fuck shit up.

skiierman - "Oh and those light posts, now how'd they get knocked over if there was no plane?"

I'm pretty sure that video even shows you that the light posts had fallen over in the wrong direction facing away from the pentagon like a large explosion had happened rather than the plane skidding accross the lawn and smashing into it like the government claims. But still the lawn looked pretty and no visible debris that I could see from where the wings clipped the light posts. At least some peices should have fallen off.

skiierman - "...because remember that the government has a few other security cameras filming the event happening but they where secured and not released due to investigation purposes."

I'm glad you brought that up. All the government would have to do to prove all the skeptics wrong is just release one complete video from any angle. Investigation purposes? How long does it take the government to investigate? Not to mention they have virtually unlimited technology and resources at their disposal.

Have you ever seen a video from a security camera shown on the news when they cant identify the person? They always want the public to help out. How bout this; release all the videos from the pentagon crash and then everyone can solve it pretty damn fast.
 
Ok, here it goes. I'm replying in two posts as so I don't have to redo the whole thing if something goes wrong with the internet.

airplaneexplod5ma.jpg


Crappy video quality to examine making his whole argument up for dismissal.CNN camera angle does show not show an explosion came before plane hit, and none of the angles show a missile being fired.

planenose5pn.jpg


Look at from the governments point of view. Do you really think, knowing that every news camera video taping the attack, would be dumb enough to send out a military plane rather than just having an extra 747 fly into the towers?

The terrorist who flew into the pentagon had trouble flying the plane and landing it… had trouble landing it!? In what way does this prove anything? He was going to crash into something, he didn’t need to know how to land the plane! And flying it, well I guess that’s why he didn’t make it to his target but instead fell short to the pentagon… Or that he just had trouble flying a small airplane because the guy said in the video that he came to him to rent a small airplane with a commercial flying license already in hand showing that he could actually fly an airplane well enough to crash it into a building.

implosion1fb.jpg


As for the plane bouncing off the lawn before hitting the pentagon, well that’s just a twist of words. The plane did hit the lawn right before it hit (as shown in the building’s security tape) but didn’t fully impact the lawn like in the airplane crash landing he showed for a poor example. Or better yet, that was just a false observation that was later disproved through the investigation at a later date.

lightposts0dg.jpg


lightposts28ad.jpg


There was pieces of the airplane outside of the Pentagon. He is just using some video with a poor angle of the wreckage as a basis for his argument. Why doesn’t he instead interview the people who where assigned to help clean up the mess? Oh yeah that’s right!They are controlled by government chips implanted into their brains! “100 tons of titanium and steel, gone.” Ummm… It just might be inside the building buddy along with the wings that got dragged in along with the plane.

testcrash6rc.jpg


whitebox2zw.jpg


pentagonhandmove9qo.jpg


Yeah! Let’s take the word of a CNN reporter who uses his careful and close-up examination of the plane wreckage at the Pentagon! Come on now, do I even have to try with this one? Oh and the official explanation was that it was all vaporized? Dude, that wasn’t the official explanation seeing they found most of the wreckage inside the building. But I guess since there are no picture of this online it possible CANNOT be true… Plus airplane fuel was not the only thing burning inside of there.
 
anotherplanepentagon0ur.jpg


pointofentry6ds.jpg


windows2xl.jpg


planedamage3mv.jpg


A CRUISE MISSILE! Man buddy, a military aircraft, now all of a sudden a cruise missile! What crazy idea are you going to come up with next. Using peoples’ eyewitness accounts (which vary greatly) is in no way evidence to prove either point. And as for the government proving it wasn’t a missile but actually an airliner by releasing sensitive evidence… Now why the Hell would they care what you conspiracy freaks think?

Fire causing the collapse of the buildings alone? Uhhh… Wait, did you just not see that plane fly RIGHT INTO THE BUILDINGS!? Yeah and comparing this fire to previous ones that happened inside of sky scrapers isn’t event comparable because thousands of gallons of airplane fuel was burning inside of it, not just some furniture and paperwork. Like you said, the fuel burns at around 1,000 degrees Celsius and the last time I checked, that’s a lot hotter than a regular fire. Oh and the massive sky scrapers falling down right next to the other buildings MIGHT have just helped with the structural failure.

carsandairplane1kh.jpg


The explosion before the buildings collapsed? Who knows what that was, but until you can come up with something more than just a bomb, I’m just not going to accept it. ALSO! If this was a planned implosion, there would have been many explosions and not just one big one.

There, this was done with just over 28 minutes of the film. Now do we really need to go the other 32 minutes to prove this guy is a complete fool and why he didn't make it into film school after a few attempts? Plain and simple, the facts stand as they are and thinking anything else is just fanciful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top