[Merged]LCFC Errors / Loose Change Final Cut

[PhantomWolf]

Talk about selective use of evidence. Dylan states that Hani Hanjour came to the US to become a pilot but failed to complete any courses, but did not finish them. Hello, he already had a license before he came!

At least he dropped the insulting Burlingame thing.

Well Hani did originally come to the US to get his licence, and he got it. He left with a Commercial Pilot's licence, but his English was still so poor that he couldn't get a job. KSM recruited him and sent him back to the States because he'd trained there and so they knew he could get in, plus he had most of his training, however when he applied for jet simulator training the school decided to check him out because his English was so bad they weren't sure that his licence was real. The FAA confirmed that he did carry a legitimate licence and so he was able to train on the simulators, but his English skills still remained lacking.

Interestingly, the only one of the four that one that didn't complete his Comercial Pilot course was Jarrah, who was flying Flight 93, but you never hear a peep about his ability, or lack there of.

 

[JMarshall]

The NORAD Tapes.

Do your homework.

Aren't you a researcher?

Have you ever been in a high risk situation, where lives actually are at stake? I have and have said things that were untrue in context to the situation, no matter how trained a service member is, or how many times you drill, there are still FUBAR situations... Taking just the NORAD tapes as fact is, quite short-sided, unless the comments on them can be confirmed by a second source. Where is the second source?

 

[Mobyseven]

Crisis? What crisis?

I love that album. Who was it that said that Supertramp were the most famous band in the world that could walk down the main street of any large city and go completely unrecognised?

What? Errors in Loose Change: Final Cut?

What next are you going to tell me? The Pope's Catholic? Water's wet? Bears defecate in the woods?

Errors in LC? Does the Pope s*** in the woods?

 

[Brainster]

Why did the military believe AA11 was stilll airborne?

Oh yeah because it never disappeared off of the radar. In fact it stayed on the radar for a good 45 minutes or so afterwards I believe.

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! Thanks for playing, though, we have some lovely parting prizes.

 

[JMarshall]

Just got to the part about "Able Danger"... Huge WOO! I had a Top Secret Security Clearance, and if I was to say anything about anything that was classified, I would be detained, and charged... So this Lt. Col. comes out with information, and all they do is pull his clearance? Sorry, not the way it happens!

E4B? Oh so people on the ground can tell the difference between a Air Force E-4B and a standard airliner, from just seeing the bottom? WOW! They must be experts in Intelligence Aircraft Identification!

And what is their whole point about the drills and war games? I have been involved in many wargames, and drills, and in fact my unit was on a drill on 9-11 as well... Does that mean I was part of the "conspiracy"? No of course not!

Quote from the movie:
"Pentagon authorities will deny that the building had anti-aircraft defense..." Dylan

So your saying they did? Huh, you know that would be the first time I have ever heard of any CONUS(Continental United States) military building with it's own anti-aircraft defenses... And where are these supposed defenses? What do Phalanx pop out of the roof? Or maybe a battery of Stinger missiles? Come on Dylan! Any other truthers that care to come to Dylan's aid on these questions?

 

[ref]

I don't know if it's an error, but omission.

They state, that those who believe flight 77 hit the Pentagon, have impact path damage, debris findings and eyewitness testimonies as their evidence.

Ok. How about also mentioning the DNA evidence, the FDR evidence that confirms the hit, the fact that no eyewitnesses saw a missile hit but over a hundred witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

They also, once again, mention that free fall from the top of the towers would be 9.2 seconds. Then they show a tower collapse with a timer. The collapses started from the impact zones below the roof, so they can not be compared to the collapse times from the top of the towers. And still the collapses took longer than 9.2 seconds. But they still like to use that "suspicious" time.

Those small inconvenient details.

 

[gumboot]

So you're now actually denying AA11 remained on the radar after it's impact with the North Tower?

Really?

Please say yes.

Absolutely I'm denying it. Furthermore, AA11 disappeared from radar some time before it hit WTC1.

-Gumboot

 

[leftysergeant]

They make a big deal about the documnets found in the wrecjkage at the Petangon and claim it is so little damaged, and then show some crappy pictures of what are obviously fire-and-water damaged passports and such.

It's surprising that the part of the wreckage that got shoved the deepest into the building didn't all burn up? Huh?

 

[ref]

Dylan also claims that Satam Al Suqami's passport was in his pocket, but of course he has no way of knowing that.

And he also says something along the lines of the passport surviving 9000 gallons of jet fuel exploding. As if all the jet fuel was used to soak the passport and then exploded. The cockpit has no jet fuel. The wings do. And thousands of papers were on the streets after the impacts. They didn't burn either.

 

[tsig]

But in trooferworld that is confirmation. Thierry Meyssan said there were automated missile defenses at the Pentagon. David Ray Griffin repeated this assertion. There, so it has been confirmed now. Proven 100%. Case closed.

Truth in trooferworld.

One person tells a lie and another swears to it = Twoof.

 

[deep]

Have you ever been in a high risk situation, where lives actually are at stake? I have and have said things that were untrue in context to the situation, no matter how trained a service member is, or how many times you drill, there are still FUBAR situations... Taking just the NORAD tapes as fact is, quite short-sided, unless the comments on them can be confirmed by a second source. Where is the second source?

LOL, ladies and gentlemen, please watch yourselves - they're moving the goalposts.

 

[deep]

It's surprising that the part of the wreckage that got shoved the deepest into the building didn't all burn up? Huh?

Yes, because everything around it seemed to disintegrate.. so is that normal or anomalous? Make up your mind.

 

[MikeW]

They mention the loss of financial information in the Pentagon impact, and then say "Rumsfeld publicly made this announcement" about the untracked $2.3 trillion.

However they provide no evidence to say that loss of financial information had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion. Also the use of the word "announcement" might lead people to think this was new information, when in fact he and others had mentioned it before, and the issue first came up in March 2000.

 

[ref]

They mention the loss of financial information in the Pentagon impact, and then say "Rumsfeld publicly made this announcement" about the untracked $2.3 trillion.

However they provide no evidence to say that loss of financial information had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion. Also the use of the word "announcement" might lead people to think this was new information, when in fact he and others had mentioned it before, and the issue first came up in March 2000.

And the issue was an estimate on percentage, not a hard figure:

...the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

It was an estimate, that 25% of what they spend they cannot be accounted for. It was not a factual statement, that they were missing $2.3 trillion.

 

[deep]

However they provide no evidence to say that loss of financial information had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion. Also the use of the word "announcement" might lead people to think this was new information, when in fact he and others had mentioned it before, and the issue first came up in March 2000.

Yes, they presented the facts and left it up to the viewer to decide what they mean. With regard to Rumsfeld's announcement, that's exactly what it was (according to the dictionary). He called a press conference to announce it.

http://dictionary.com

 

[deep]

It was an estimate, that 25% of what they spend they cannot be accounted for. It was not a factual statement, that they were missing $2.3 trillion.

Yes, that was only according to some estimates. It's all stated pretty clearly in the quote (and in LC:FC).

Thanks. Hope you don't feel that you've just debunked anything.

 

[ref]

For those interested, here is the entire transcript of what Rumsfeld said.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

He declared war on "Pentagon Bureaucracy".

 

[MikeW]

Yes, they presented the facts and left it up to the viewer to decide what they mean. With regard to Rumsfeld's announcement, that's exactly what it was (according to the dictionary). He called a press conference to announce it.

http://dictionary.com

They did not present the fact that this was first announced in March 2000. I wonder why? It's not like it's irrelevant - once you know it had been discussed for more than a year, the September 10 mention is clearly just a coincidence.

And Rumsfeld was not "announcing" this on September 10, it was already public knowledge.

 

[sleahead]

Yes, they presented the facts and left it up to the viewer to decide what they mean. With regard to Rumsfeld's announcement, that's exactly what it was (according to the dictionary). He called a press conference to announce it.

No, they did not present the facts about the $2.3 trillion by only including Rumfeld's announcement. They did not report that the 'missing' $2.3 trillion was public knowledge long before September 10th 2001, nor do they report the longstanding dissatifaction with DoD financial reporting. Given this, what conclusion do you think they want the viewer to come to?

Edit: Too quick for me, MikeW

 

[ref]

Yes, that was only according to some estimates. It's all stated pretty clearly in the quote (and in LC:FC).

Thanks. Hope you don't feel that you've just debunked anything.

They (Loose Change) state, that there was "Loss of financial information" at Pentagon, when 77 struck. Then they mention, that Rumsfeld said that "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"

It was estimated, that they cannot account for 25% of their spenditure. Some others estimated, that up to $2.3 trillion could not be accounted for. They are estimates of something that cannot be accounted for. Not some hard facts, that "because of these transactions we are missing $2.3 trillion". And as you have seen, it was public knowledge long before September 10, 2001.

Now. Some "financial information" was lost on the impact? Did it have anything to do with those estimates, that 25% of spenditure cannot be accounted for? Did they miraculously loose all the important papers and computers, that stored all the information about those estimated sums that are not accounted for?

First, proove that some financial information was permanently lost. Then prove, that the "financial information" that was lost had any connection with the estimated figure that was not accounted for. Then prove, that they crashed flight 77 into Wedge 1 to destroy precisely that evidence. Then you have a case.

Otherwise, move on.