Loose Change

[delphi_ote]

Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.

Yes. Alex was the pinnacle of manners and good conduct.

You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english.

Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film.

Disingenuous? Honestly? You're ascribing a deliberate attempt on my part to hide information? Why would I care if anyone knows this? I stopped watching an awful movie. I offered the information unprompted. If I was trying to lie about it or trick anyone, why would I have openly admitted it for no reason at all?

I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again.

Not if you read what he wrote immediately before it:

I suspect this is the paramount reason for why people tend to believe big lies. It is less a function of keeping secrets from being revealed, and more a function of keeping revealed secrets from being believed.

Odds are Alek was just being ignorant here, believing Hitler was advocating The Big Lie strategy. In fact, Hitler was a paranoid maniac raving about a massive Jewish conspiracy whose core strategy was The Big Lie. Hitler saw imaginary enemies and conspiracies all around him until the day he died. Let's not use him as an example.

If The 9/11 Holocaust is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?

Do we take the Holocaust deniers serious consideration, too? Roswell? The moon landings being faked? We're not dealing with an honest exploration here at all. We're combating the delusions of the paranoid. Please don't pretend like there's a hidden adult discussion in these films. If we're going to talk like grown ups, we have to face the basic facts about the world first. Otherwise, we're just like a mob rushing to burn someone at the stake for an imaginary crime.

 

[delphi_ote]

He may well have found it BS in 30 seconds.

I watched 30 minutes of the film.

 

[Alek]

I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."

Considering I wasted a substantial amount of my time and keystrokes on an individual who gave me the impression he had watched a film when really he hadn't, I think I'm entitled to call a spade a spade. It wasn't until well into the thread when I exposed him for not watching the film, after he made some reference about watching the towers fall. Remember, he started the thread. If it weren't for him, and google, I wouldn't be here. Bill Clinton was a liar too, regardless of the definition of "is".

I understood his use of the Hitler quote to be saying the "big lie" philosophy is not only a philosophy but had in fact been turned into a way of life by Hitler and that one should be conscious of past evils, remember them, not deny that it is not possible for something similar to happen again. For those who wanted to paint him with the brush of an anti-Semite just for quoting Hitler I would suggest a bit more patience and understanding would go a long way for a more productive debate.

I used the quote to illustrate the idea that some secrets can be open, dependent not on secrecy itself, but on the notion that the secret is inconceivable or unacceptable by most. Only the most narrow-minded would find my use of that quote to be sympathetic to, or an endorsement of Hitler. Naturally, dephi_ote used it as an opportunity to paint me as anti-jewish.

If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?

Certainly it does. Which is why I have greedily consumed as much information about it as possible, so as to attempt to understand the truth. The idea that someone would only watch the first thirty minutes of a 9/11 documentary strikes me as apathetic, and almost negligent. Even if one doesn't like the agenda of the filmmaker, it seems to me that the possibility of seeing new footage of that incredible event would make it more than worthwhile. I've watched virtually every 9/11 documentary available. I knew what to expect from Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but I watched it anyway, in its entirety.

Do any of you think that my impression that the discussion became polarized between the 'kooks" and the rationalists is flawed?? If so why?

The discussion became polarized because it was designed to be polarized. Not one forum member here put off the slightest pretense of objectivity. I suspect this thread was treated just like every other thread on this forum, as a vehicle to provide the members with entertainment by ridicule while slapping the other members on the back. In this case, a questioning of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory replaced ghost stories, bigfoot sightings, and alien encounters. In hindsight, I would have to question the motives of people in a forum devoted to debunking the paranormal. There are more important things in life than making fun of psychics.

For myself I would have liked the discussion to have focused on the effect of a film like this, the cottage industry that surrounds events such as 911 and how all of that keeps us distracted from the main issues which I believe Alex was attempting to discuss like the dissolution of our freedoms, the possible explanations for that, and the current and continuing move towards globalization and a discussion of its pitfalls and positive possibilities.

I would rather have focused on the facts concerning 9/11 as documented by the film in question. Instead I was goaded into speculating on motive, and revealing my unorthodox worldview, no doubt with the intent on providing more fodder for ridicule.

A few words for Alex if you are listening. While I hear what you are saying and understand your concerns, you might want to consider that films like "loose Change" may be playing to your emotions which can sometimes be detrimental to ones reasoning. It is not that some things in the film might not have validity; just that the film may have its own separate agenda and it may not be what you think. It seems like films which do this are currently popular '"what the bleep do we know" would be a good example.

Everyone, including the filmmaker has an agenda. I don't remember giving any indication what-so-ever that I agree with every theory in the movie, I merely agree with the simple conclusion. I'm well aware of how to think critically. I make it my job to first understand the speaker, before I listen to what he has to say.

I saw "Bleep". It was a terrible film, basically a two-hour infomercial for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment cult. I'm a trooper though, I managed to actually view the film in its entirety before I wrote my review of it.

Originally, I was going to be on flight 11, the first one to hit the towers. I changed my reservation to a later flight so I wouldn't have to get my mom up so early. When I finally was able to get back out, I took the same flight back to LA.

I was removed from the airplane after boarding by state police and some of the suit guys with ear pieces (I have a dark complection and was particularly suntanned as well as unshaven). I was held for some minutes outside of the aircraft and finally moved back to the gate. When I questioned why I had been removed, I was told that I had had an altercation at the check-in counter as well as at the security check point. I explained that I found that strange since I had originated from Long Island and was connecting through Boston and did not go through the check in , nor, security at Logan airport.

Maybe your prior cancellation generated some sort of exception, but you still managed to get on the flight out of New York somehow. Congratulations on your winning the 9/11 lottery though, that must have been quite a feeling.

CAPPS II is the future of airline travel. The program was supposedly scrapped (like Total Information Awareness), but I'm sure it will find its way back in some other form.

I appreciated your input and hope in the future that persons who are willing to come to this site and are serious in thier discussions will be treated with a bit more dignity.

Thanks for the support. Do you have an opinion on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?

 

[emperorchaos]

I think 30 minutes of the film was adequate enough to show that the filmmaker wasn't going to provide any solid evidence. That's about as much as I watched of it.

Now, if there was some solid evidence, I'd be glad to hear of it.

 

[kookbreaker]

Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.

This is from Alek's second post on this entire forum:

Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.

Can you say 'hostile'? As delphi pointed out, he made very nasty attacks that quite frankly made me think he wanted to be banned. He also tried to play the slippery eel by claiming people were putting words in his mouth, and when that was shown to be an outright utter LIE, he feld and went crying to sympathetic board.

I came across the thread while doing some researching of the film after viewing it in its entirety. Yes, I do think it was a bit disingenuous for the author of the thread not to admit up front that he had not seen the entire film. Yes, I do think it was not entirely appropriate for Alex to call him a liar.
Yes, it did degrade into a rather childish debate about if it was a lie or not. Kind of reminded me of the Clinton deposition where he says "..it depends on what the definition of is is.."

It has been the cornerstone of Alek's position on Delphi, and it is unbelievably weak. Considering Alek's level of intellectual dishonesty (see Claimee's post) I have a hard time being sympathetic.

 

[WildCat]

I would rather have focused on the facts concerning 9/11 as documented by the film in question. Instead I was goaded into speculating on motive, and revealing my unorthodox worldview, no doubt with the intent on providing more fodder for ridicule.

So, do you have any eyewitnesses to a missile hitting the Pentagon yet Alek? This was a cornerstone to your theory, yet you seem to be having trouble finding a single one.

 

[Hellbound]

To add a second to WildCat, do you also have a theory on how any planted explosives would have survived impact and fire, yet still have been intact enough to perform a controlled demolition?

 

[CurtC]

I think 30 minutes of the film was adequate enough to show that the filmmaker wasn't going to provide any solid evidence. That's about as much as I watched of it.

FWIW, I watched only ten minutes of the first Loose Change video, which were so full of lies and distortions that I didn't need to watch the rest. I don't fault Delphi for stating he had seen it when he saw just the first 30 minutes - that's not a big deal, especially with rotting putrid excrement like that video.

 

[diggingdeeper]

Thanks for the support. Do you have an opinion on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory?"

Thanks for the link Alex.
I certainly do not have a cohesive theory about 911. I do view it as a historically paradigm shifting event.

I do have some questions about some of the material brought up in the film as well as some not mentioned (or, I didn't press pause when I got some coffee and missed it).

The most glaring for me was the finding of the passport. I am a New Yorker; I have not bought the bridge lately.

I am also astounded at the number of casualties given the scope of the incident. By this I mean no disrespect to the families of the victims.

The cell phone thing.
To the best of my knowledge, all descriptions of the hijackers said they had "box cutters". Being familiar with tools I found this highly unlikely.
This is a tool with several other names like utility knife, razor knife. I thought it unusual that everyone would describe it in the same terms. While not being scientific, every once and a while, I have pulled one out and asked people to write down the name and have never found all or close to all in agreement.

The Saudi family being put on a plane.

I had not heard of the Cleveland landing before and would have liked to have heard more of the hows and whys about it.

The stock trades, as a former trader I have read the explanations for those trades but I think it would be more then relevant to release the names at this point.

The information of exactly what cases were affected and how by the WTC#7 collapse due to missing evidence. I have not heard a peep about this.

The missing footage from the Pentagon crash. I find it hard to believe that the Pentagon does not have cameras up the Wahoo that can count the hairs on ones Wahoo!

I do believe however that the confiscation of the other tapes around is more their mode of operation rather then a "grab them before people find out what we did kind of thing. My guess is they figure regardless of what is on the tapes they want to have them so they can control the spin. Ever think about the possibility that they might not be releasing them just as a distraction???

The guy using his last name to his mother, which was certainly weird. Yet I wonder why the film-makers did not bother to interview his mother to find out if she thought it was weird. I always look at more what is not said then what is.

This is one of the reasons I likened the film to "What the bleep" There was quite a bit of information in the film that was linked together by the film-makers to lead one towards their conclusion.

The use of the UL guy as their best spokesman on metallurgy is not a good indicator of the quality of their research.

The idea that the pilot who flew the plane into the Pentagon had played a part in military exercises before had my interest, but it went nowhere.

The fact that they left the gold deal until the end to me was like in "What the bleep" leaving the credentials of the speakers to the credits in the end of the film.

For me, it is like seeing something in reverse. If they had said up front the movie was about a gold heist, then shown how and why and by whom it was done it would have more credibility with me.

I do entertain these possibilities though. That the government had advance knowlage of the attack, be it the actual attack or were just aware that something big was going to happen. That they have contingency plans that immediately go into place and that part of those contingency plans include how are they going to cover up their inability to deal with it.

If there is a cover up I find it more likely to be one of that sort, rather then the secret cabal of bankers ruling the world.

It does not surprise me that people with the amount of money and power that the "Globalists" have meet in secret. If I had that kind of dough I would too! When one has power they want to hold on to it and protect it.

When they do so at my expense is when I get tough.

Another one of the many possibilities is that they were completely taken by surprise because of the bureaucracy that didn't follow earlier leads as has been suggested in the OWTCR. However, I would not put it past them to use this incident to consolidate money, power, and global opportunities.

I do have a concern about what this is going to mean for our future liberties and freedoms, however, my first freedom is my mind and while I like to keep an open mind, I keep my hand on the doorknob and the key in my pocket!

 

[aggle-rithm]

It does not surprise me that people with the amount of money and power that the "Globalists" have meet in secret. If I had that kind of dough I would too! When one has power they want to hold on to it and protect it.

When they do so at my expense is when I get tough.

Ooh, ooh! Let's have them all wear dark glasses and carry briefcases handcuffed to their wrists. That would be totally cool!

 

[senorpogo]

I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?

The issue isn't whether governments have lied in the past. The issue is "did the United States government plot and execute the plan for the September 11th attacks"? If you believe they did, prove it. Give us something beyond grainy video and eyewitness quotes taken out of context. Detail the staggering logistics required to demolish the buildings and keep everyone involved quiet. Explain away the illogic within the plot itself such as crashing planes into a building AND lacing them with explosives. Then provide evidence of exactly who in our government planned this and why they did it.

What the people on this board have repeatedly asked for is factual proof to support the claims made by Loose Change. Every bit of proof offered up has been quickly and efficiently disproven or discredited yet proponents of the theory on this board refuse to admit it. Instead, they continue to offer their wild theories without offering up concrete or solid proof. All this does is further upset the skeptics on this board.

And you should not be surprised when skeptics react with vehemence against an extraordinary claim supported by very little evidence.

 

[CurtC]

I certainly do not have a cohesive theory about 911.

Thanks for the answers. I suggest that if you try to fit your questions of the official story, into a cohesive theory, you'll find that it's pretty much impossible. The only theory that even remotely explains all the data is the standard model.

The most glaring for me was the finding of the passport.

What's the problem with that? There was a lot of stuff found.

I am also astounded at the number of casualties given the scope of the incident.

In what way? Were they higher than you would have expected, or lower, or what?

The cell phone thing.

I didn't watch the whole Loose Change, and I watched none of the second one, so what's the problem here? Some people were able to make cell phone calls from a plane? You know that some calls were made from the airphones on board the plane, right?

To the best of my knowledge, all descriptions of the hijackers said they had "box cutters".

And this indicates a conspiracy how exactly??? Seems to me that someone used that term talking to the press, and it stuck.

The stock trades, as a former trader I have read the explanations for those trades but I think it would be more then relevant to release the names at this point.

You might not think so if you were that person. That would scare me to death.

It does not surprise me that people with the amount of money and power that the "Globalists" have meet in secret.

Who are these Globalists, with a capital G. How do I know if I'm one?

 

[senorpogo]

That's another thing I don't get about the whole conspiracy thing (and I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but deserves repeating)-

These people, these "globalists", appear to have god-like effieciency at times.

They have a reach that gives them control over members of our government, big business, and the media. They also have seemingly infinite resources. Plus they can come and go like the wind when they need too. Heck, they prepared three buildings in busy New York City for demo without even being seen!

Yet despite all this unlimited power, their execution of the 9/11 plot was so sloppy that we're all sitting here talking about it. They have the power to keep hundreds of minions silent about their involvement and they have control of the media, yet they can't doctor up compelling evidence to ensure that people will buy the cover story?

What a poor double-super-secret organization.

 

[diggingdeeper]

What's the problem with that? There was a lot of stuff found.
In what way? Were they higher than you would have expected, or lower, or what?


And this indicates a conspiracy how exactly??? Seems to me that someone used that term talking to the press, and it stuck.


You might not think so if you were that person. That would scare me to death.

 

[diggingdeeper]

Thanks for the answers. I suggest that if you try to fit your questions of the official story, into a cohesive theory, you'll find that it's pretty much impossible. The only theory that even remotely explains all the data is the standard model.

Fortunately, I have neither the time, ability, or desire to form a cohesive theory about it. If I found myself doing so, I would find myself suspect! I do believe that the standard model is currently the most acceptable theory at the time. This does not stop me from wondering about certain aspect though and certainly does not close my mind to alternative explaination.

What's the problem with that? There was a lot of stuff found.

I guess you are right, there is no problem....by the way, there is this nice bridge for sale downtown.......

In what way? Were they higher than you would have expected, or lower, or what?

They were much lower then I would have expected.

And this indicates a conspiracy how exactly??? Seems to me that someone used that term talking to the press, and it stuck.

I am not in anyway advocating a conspiracy theory. It was just my impressions. You may be right. I have never read the transcripts. Have you? Do you know where I could read them? I would imagine the press got it from somewhere.

You might not think so if you were that person. That would scare me to death.

I understand your point, however in this case I think an exception could be considered. What were your thoughts about the evidence that was destroyed in # 7. Are you aware of that being disclosed anywhere?

Who are these Globalists, with a capital G. How do I know if I'm one?

LOL you wouldn't be here , that's for sure!!!

On a serious note, I would consider a Globalist to be a person, entity, whose reach economically, politically, culturally is global in nature. This includes a lot, and in no way makes them a big, bad boogie man/woman

 

[Hellbound]

On the passport being found, I find nothing odd about this. The idea that this is unusual comes from a Hollywood idea of explosives, and how they operate. Police and crime scene techs routinely find parts from the "ground zero" of explosive devices, as an example. Very rarely does an explosion destroy everything around it. Even wires, casings, timers, and triggers from the actual bombs themselves are sometimes found intact (uncommon, but not unusual).

With a plane crash, one has to remember that a plane is made, mostly, of thin metals and plastics. I doubt that there was much left of the parts of the planes inside the buildings. It's not much of a strech to assume that sudden decelleration from 400mph to zero would destroy the front half, and sling any persons and/or objects in the plane out the front, into the buildings or even out through broken windows.

Besides, as others have stated, it's not as if the passport was a key piece of evidence, in any case. It supports other evidence, but isn't really a requirement for the official conclusion. If they were going to plant something, it seems that DNA from the highjacker would be a more convincing plant (a claimed finger or hand recovered, for example).

 

[delphi_ote]

FWIW, I watched only ten minutes of the first Loose Change video, which were so full of lies and distortions that I didn't need to watch the rest. I don't fault Delphi for stating he had seen it when he saw just the first 30 minutes - that's not a big deal, especially with rotting putrid excrement like that video.

And I didn't just dismiss it! I started looking up the claims that they had made. My BS detector was reading in the red for the whole movie, but it wasn't until I verified that what they were saying was false that I decided not to watch the rest of the film! Did I miss the trick ending where the directors jumped in front of a camera and said "April Fools?" If my conclusions from the beginning didn't match what was said in the rest of the movie, someone could've pointed that out to me very easily.

And I'd say I made the most effort in this tread to independently verify facts and come to my own conclusions. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I worked for hours working out equations and finding the right data. I looked at countless images of those buildings (not an easy thing for me to do.) I tried working the physics out myself (and there were some brazen mistakes back there! It took a lot for me to work toward a solution. Honestly, that paper Wildcat linked is just great.) I put a lot of time testing each of the claims I investigated. Rather than responding to these questions an inquiring and skeptical mind might have, the film moves on to the next subject. Alek did the same, even when directly confronted with the evidence and questions. He started to ask questions about the physics of the building collapsing. I thought we might be on the right track, nailing down the truth of one of these claims. Immediately after that, he ran off on a tangent about WTC7.

That's the problem with this garbage. Someone who generally wants to find the truth has to spend hours researching the facts. The conpsiracy nuts just slap a few pictures together and say "No way could that happen!" They expect us to sit around patiently and debunk every single claim they make. If it's an hour movie, we have to watch every minute of it and debunk every claim it makes or it's true. Their response to this is never to clarify, investigate the issue further, or admit they were wrong. We're dealing with the paranoid here. They ignore it and jump to the next subject.

It's the same problem with anti-evolution creationists, Kennedy assasination conspiracy theorists, moon landing hoaxters, (yes) Holocaust deniers, people believing in alien abductions... this list could go on forever. These people want to believe whatever thing they believe in because it fills some need they have. As soon as their delusions run into contradictory facts, you can watch them trying to resolve the congintive dissonance in front of you. Sadly, their strategy is usually to rationalize the facts away rather than confront them and reject their faulty hypothesis. That's exactly what's happening when they jump to the next subject.

 

[CurtC]

I guess you are right, there is no problem....by the way, there is this nice bridge for sale downtown.......

If I'm going to buy a bridge from you or anyone, I'd definitely want title insurance to guarantee that you actually have ownership to sell in the first place. Now back to the passport thing - what's your issue with Atta's passport having been found? There was lots of stuff found.

They [casualties] were much lower then I would have expected.

What did you base your expectations on? It was at a time when most people weren't yet at work, and most people in the buildings below where the planes hit, got out. On 9/11, my guess was around 3000, and that turned out to be pretty close. But back to the "theory" question - if the number was unreasonably low, what does that imply about the planners/perpetrators, and is that plausible?

What were your thoughts about the evidence that was destroyed in # 7.

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[delphi_ote]

Another one of the many possibilities is that they were completely taken by surprise because of the bureaucracy that didn't follow earlier leads as has been suggested in the OWTCR. However, I would not put it past them to use this incident to consolidate money, power, and global opportunities.

Would they have to murder everyone in the buildings themselves for this to be the case? Of course not. And it seems pretty clear you don't think that either.

But that's what I meant in my earlier post about agreeing on basic facts before we discuss grown-up issues. Talking about geopolitics when you believe that the entire world is directly ruled by 10 people smoking cigars in a dark room is pointless. Who cares about voting or complex social issues when all we need to do is slap the bogeymen?

 

[aggle-rithm]

They were much lower then I would have expected.

I would expect them to be higher, too, but for some reason when a plane ran into their building and it caught fire, many occupants of the building left. Isn't it a little CONVENIENT that they all decided to leave at the SAME TIME?!? Perhaps they were tipped off by the globalists...?

What were your thoughts about the evidence that was destroyed in # 7. Are you aware of that being disclosed anywhere?

I've noticed that evidence is often destroyed when a building catches fire and falls down. I find it highly suspicious that this unknown evidence, having been destroyed, is not immediately made available to the public.