Loose Change - What Do You All Think?

[ApolloBalboa]

To answer your question: people keep on clicking this thread because you keep on feeling the need to bump it up to the top of the list with a useless post saying something about Mark Cuban, the final cut of your movie, etc., and obviously people don't take your "gestures" to heart, so why continue feeding the fire?

But, I'll tell you what: I watched your link (or rather, some parts of it), and didn't find any of it inspiring, truthful, or groundbreaking in any sense of the word. Also, I've read that even other people (members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, in fact!) have criticized and disputed its credibility. You know why?

BECAUSE IT'S FLAWED.

Some points on which to base that (to show that I can produce evidence):

*Different editions of your movie say different things; (the 1st edition of your movie says that there was a "pod" under the fuselage of the plane that struck the South Tower and was harped on as a drone that the government used. It has not been mentioned since that edition, nor have many other "facts" that were brought up.

*Your movie says things that are incorrect (other than that 9/11 was an insider job), like that Flight 77 had Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy, when they didn't. They also use (or rather, used) Wikipedia as source for articles until they were replaced with actual "articles" containing the exact same information. Now, if any regular teacher won't accept Wikipedia as a reference for a biographical paper, why should the public accept it as one for one of the most tragic events in the past hundred years?

*The fact that actual demolition professionals (read: people who get paid to demolish things) have said that controlled demolition of the towers like that would be impossible (not implausible, impossible).

If that isn't enough for you, I'll be glad to post more.

In some ways, I can honestly respect your crusade for what you yourself can believe in, but I can't respect that you still feel the need to come here and try to force your beliefs upon people who have clearly no interest in what you preach. As someone in your position, you have to accept that this is a lost cause and move on, you coming back when we've all said repeatedly "we're not interested" is why we continue to ridicule you.

 

[WTC7WasPulled]

To answer your question: people keep on clicking this thread because you keep on feeling the need to bump it up to the top of the list with a useless post saying something about Mark Cuban, the final cut of your movie, etc., and obviously people don't take your "gestures" to heart, so why continue feeding the fire?

But, I'll tell you what: I watched your link (or rather, some parts of it), and didn't find any of it inspiring, truthful, or groundbreaking in any sense of the word. Also, I've read that even other people (members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, in fact!) have criticized and disputed its credibility. You know why?

BECAUSE IT'S FLAWED.

Some points on which to base that (to show that I can produce evidence):

*Different editions of your movie say different things; (the 1st edition of your movie says that there was a "pod" under the fuselage of the plane that struck the South Tower and was harped on as a drone that the government used. It has not been mentioned since that edition, nor have many other "facts" that were brought up.

*Your movie says things that are incorrect (other than that 9/11 was an insider job), like that Flight 77 had Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy, when they didn't. They also use (or rather, used) Wikipedia as source for articles until they were replaced with actual "articles" containing the exact same information. Now, if any regular teacher won't accept Wikipedia as a reference for a biographical paper, why should the public accept it as one for one of the most tragic events in the past hundred years?

*The fact that actual demolition professionals (read: people who get paid to demolish things) have said that controlled demolition of the towers like that would be impossible (not implausible, impossible).

If that isn't enough for you, I'll be glad to post more.

In some ways, I can honestly respect your crusade for what you yourself can believe in, but I can't respect that you still feel the need to come here and try to force your beliefs upon people who have clearly no interest in what you preach. As someone in your position, you have to accept that this is a lost cause and move on, you coming back when we've all said repeatedly "we're not interested" is why we continue to ridicule you.

First of all it's not My Movie.

Second of all the first film was made in 2005 when very little information was available about any alternatives to the 9/11 Commission and Dylan Avery was young. The pod thing whether or not true, is irrelevant and Dylan realized this after the fact.

Third of all 9/11 evidence continues to come out year by year so if 20 Loose Change's have to be made to cover all the evidence then so be it.

The film Loose Change Final Cut has the best most up to date information. But the film I posted on post 1 was Loose Change 2nd Edition which was the powerful hard hitting and quite accurate for its time film that woke me up. It allowed me to see without any doubt in my mind that controlled demolition was used to bring down the towers and Building 7.

I mean can you honestly look at this following video of Building 7 collapsing and tell me that is not controlled demolition? What will it take to see it if this doesn't click something in your brain? I don't have to mention blast squibs or anything, just LOOK AT IT! Any fool with high school physics or any construction experience can tell you that is controlled demolition.

 

[WTC7WasPulled]

Just uploaded by the 1400 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is a 33 minute version of the presentation called Blueprint For Truth.

The evidence of controlled demolition is walked through in great detail. It is very easy to understand. Watch it.

 

[robbied196]

LOOK AT IT! Any fool with high school physics or any construction experience can tell you that is controlled demolition.

The problem here is that rather than make a relevant case argument from the facts, you've convinced yourself of what you think happened. The more you pursue your idea, the more delusional you appear.

So, you look at the video.

Any fool with high school physics or any construction experience will tell you that if explosives are used in a demolition, the explosions cause a pressure change between the inside and outside structure. Low internal pressure, high external pressure. If you look at other controlled explosions, often windows (the point of least resistance) implode. This happens a fraction of a second before the main visual explosion.

Now look at the video, frame by frame.

I know this is a pointless debate, because as I've said, you've convinced yourself that its an explosion.

But look again. There are NO signs of a controlled explosion.

There are signs of fracture to the structure, and if you follow the video frame by frame, these become the main points of collapse.

At 2 seconds the left side begins to collapse, at 3 seconds you see the fracture on the right just before the windows disintegrate.

 

[WTC7WasPulled]

The problem here is that rather than make a relevant case argument from the facts, you've convinced yourself of what you think happened. The more you pursue your idea, the more delusional you appear.

So, you look at the video.

Any fool with high school physics or any construction experience will tell you that if explosives are used in a demolition, the explosions cause a pressure change between the inside and outside structure. Low internal pressure, high external pressure. If you look at other controlled explosions, often windows (the point of least resistance) implode. This happens a fraction of a second before the main visual explosion.

Now look at the video, frame by frame.

I know this is a pointless debate, because as I've said, you've convinced yourself that its an explosion.

But look again. There are NO signs of a controlled explosion.

There are signs of fracture to the structure, and if you follow the video frame by frame, these become the main points of collapse.

Robbie you may think I'm an idiot or something but watch this video. 1400 Architects and Engineers back this up. Very slow meticulous evidence presented of controlled demolition.

This video blows away your theory, sorry. Please watch it and comment back to me. I really want to know what you think of this presentation.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Yea, I do have a problem.

It's my inability to cope with insulting levels of bombastic, puerile mental masturbation.

You have repeatedly refused to confront any and all feedback from FO members on this thread. You have exposed yourself as the worst kind of zealot: a coward who shields his own terror of reality in a cloak of blame against a world he cannot cope with or understand; a frightened child that must always find a monster in the closet to justify his bed wetting.

Your intellectual impotence is matched only by your mendacious ignorance of fact, and your arrogant rejection of the answers to your own question(s).

You are covered in shame.




THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE HERE, RIGHT. JUST KEEP REPEATING OLD POSTS

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

These videos have a more compelling, coherent message than anything Milton has posted.

Still more relevant than anything you've ever posted.

 

[YMIHERE]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.-- Winston Churchill

 

[sayvara]

Everything you said is retarded. So everyone that says anything bad about the government is a liar? Yeah nice blanket statement. Vaccines are dangerous by the way but I guess I just want attention. Gimme a fuckin break tard.

Look at the evidence and stick your shitty comedy routines up your ass bud.

I don't quite know who you were responding to there but it sure as heck wasn't me.

/S

 

[bustybbwlover]

i think before 9/11 most of the people who believe the conspiracy myths would have assumed crashing a several hundred thousand pound airliner into a building would cause a rather catastrophic failure in said building

 

[WTC7WasPulled]

i think before 9/11 most of the people who believe the conspiracy myths would have assumed crashing a several hundred thousand pound airliner into a building would cause a rather catastrophic failure in said building

Thats been proven wrong even by the architects of the World Trade Center who said it could've handled multiple airplane strikes and the grid would not be greatly compromised. In fact he said it would really do nothing to it. This video aired before 9/11. By the way a 707 jet and a 767 are the same weight.

 

[Shifty]

^^ There's no way to prove that.

How can you design a building to withstand the impact of a jet rocketing at over 500 mph, loaded with jet fuel?

How do you test that Mr. Project Manager?

Even when an 'expert' takes a guess, they are only correct (at best) 50% of the time.

 

[GregCentauro]

Thats been proven wrong even by the architects of the World Trade Center who said it could've handled multiple airplane strikes and the grid would not be greatly compromised.

Didn't the builders of the Titanic say the ship was unsinkable? Excuse me when I don't provide a Youtube vid.

 

[Shifty]

Excuse me when I don't provide a Youtube vid.

Sooo lazy ...

 

[Ulysses31]

Sooo lazy ...

Shifty, you and your 911 conspiracy theories, when will you ever learn :horse:

 

[DrSoles]

Didn't the builders of the Titanic say the ship was unsinkable? Excuse me when I don't provide a Youtube vid.

The Titanic did not sink. That's a lie. It is on Mount Ararat along with Noah's Ark. I would post links to prove it but "They" keep deleting them.

 

[WTC7WasPulled]

The Titanic did not sink. That's a lie. It is on Mount Ararat along with Noah's Ark. I would post links to prove it but "They" keep deleting them.

I love how when I post irrefutable evidence to prove a point, the board switches to comedy. So funny.

 

[GregCentauro]

I love how when I post irrefutable evidence to prove a point, the board switches to comedy. So funny.

Not comedy. Satire.

In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I love how when I post irrefutable evidence to prove a point, the board switches to comedy. So funny.

Everything you post is refutable. Everything. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility of any alternate hypothesis through sheer willful ignorance of common sense. You're the fucking Rosie O'Donnell of freeones. Welcome aboard, Rosie.

 

[Master Roshi]

sorry but I just cannot accept the official story on 911, there must be another investigation done, there are too many unanswered questions