NationStates Jolt Archive

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change&hl=en

Alright, this is a very long video (almost an hour and a half), but I've never seen anyone even mention it on NSG, even though I'm sure someone has somewhere.

Basically, this Loose Change video outlines the 9/11 events and tries to place a conspiracy theory on everything they possibly can: Whether or not it was a plane which hit the Pentagon, the possibility of government involvement. Its quite unoriginal in its theories, but it does raise a few decent points.

1. This regards the Pentagon, and whether or not it was a plane which impacted it. The video mentions that the engine pieces found at the site (there were only 2, which were obviously far smaller than that found in a Boeing Jet) could not have been from a Boeing Jet. It also points out that the size of the damaged area was not consistent with the damage caused by a 757-223; it was far too small a hole and there was no evidence of wing damage. Also mentioned are the fact that there were reports of cordite smoke, and the explosion at the Pentagon far similar to a cordite explosion (with photo comparisons), than to jet fuel.

2. It also questions whether the structural integrity of the WTC towers would have been damaged to the point of collapse by an impact. It also compares the collapse of the towers to a common demolition. Also mentioned was the WTC 7 building, which collapsed later in the day of 9/11 (that evening, after 4pm) due to a fire ignited from the collapse of the towers.

3. Going back to the Pentagon, it makes the point that the hijacker of the plane who hit the building was most likely not skilled enough a pilot to manage to fly a jet at the speeds which the plane crashed at.

My question: When the plane hit the Pentagon, it would have left a much larger debris field, wouldn't it have?

They show a tomahawk cruise missle impact later in the film, which seemed to me (I'm no expert, by any means) to be more consistent with the hole seen in the Pentagon, not of a Boeing 757.

I also found it interesting that the number of "puts," (basically stock insurance) skyrocketed for companies involving airlines, boeing and the WTC.

Theres tons more, far too much to mention in a single post. I personally don't think there was much, if at all, government involvement with the hijackers. However, there is some evidence which I think raises some questions, at the very least. Those are my major concerns up there.

What does everyone else think?

Ah, and here's the wiki article about the documentary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism
Scratch out the claims that a missile hit the Pentagon.

I think he called it "Loose Change" because if anyone gets caught masturbating to this conspiracy bullshit, they can just say "I was just looking for some loose change in my pockets."

My god, a time warp has opened and someone is posting from 2005!

I've on;y been here since February and I've seen links to this video a billion times. This is as played out as the illegal immigration debates, the Islam debates and the evolution debates without the advantage of still being topical.

I think he called it "Loose Change" because if anyone gets caught masturbating to this conspiracy bullshit, they can just say "I was just looking for some loose change in my pockets."

Speaking from experience?

I think he called it "Loose Change" because if anyone gets caught masturbating to this conspiracy bullshit, they can just say "I was just looking for some loose change in my pockets."
Heh.:rolleyes:

My god, a time warp has opened and someone is posting from 2005!

In 2005 I didn't know this video existed. Found it interesting, wanted to know what others thought. Sorry for being ignorant?

In 2005 I didn't know this video existed. Found it interesting, wanted to know what others thought. Sorry for being ignorant?

As long as you're sorry.

Terrorists hit the twin towers now its not a problem and like nuclear war nothing to sit at home worrying about

End of discussion

Trilby63;12069675']Speaking from experience?

Why yes. In my experience people who jack off to conspiracy theories often make references to loose change in an attempt to make it seem as if they're not, in fact, just jacking off to conspiracy theories.

I've heard rumors of bombs in the WTC and shit like that...but frankly even if it was a conspiracy, it wouldn't lower my opinion of the government any (which shows you how low it is to begin with)...power-brokers will be power-brokers. do people really need this kind of conspiracy stuff to prove that rich megolamaniacs don't care about human life and manipulate the general public? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. between the Iran-Contra affair and our alliance with the Uzbek regime and any number of other things in recent and 18th/19th century history, if 9-11 were a conspiracy, it could hardly bring the government any lower than it allready was...

Loose Change is a bunch of conspicary bull. Hell, I do belive someone made a video called Screw Loose Change that pretty much riddled it with machine-gun bullets.

I'll give the creator if the movie this: He did an excellent job of creatively editing things that were totally unrelated together, to make it seem like they were related, cherry picking the pictures and quotes he used and putting it to creepy techno music.

The only surprise in the Pentagon nonsense is that the building took as much damage as it did. I'm deeply disappointed.

Was the statement about everyone within eyeshot's footage was confiscated by the government ever confirmed or rebuked?

Was the statement about everyone within eyeshot's footage was confiscated by the government ever confirmed or rebuked?

I saw plenty of footage of both the WTC and the Pentagon and the government released security camerta footgae of the plane hitting the Pentagon more then ay ear ago.

The Loose Change vid is bullshit and lies.

End of story.

It's the liberal whackjob equivilent of FAUXNews, picking and choosing elements of the facts to suit their own warped and twisted view of the world.

In 2005 I didn't know this video existed. Found it interesting, wanted to know what others thought. Sorry for being ignorant?No problem. look for Screw Loose Change. they point out alot of errors that Loose Change makes in their assumptions.

Another site dedicated to debunking the 9/11 conspiracy: http://www.debunking911.com/

the american gov. probaly let them do it. I would but nothing passed the american gov. no matter how sinister.

Even if the conspiracy theorists are off their rocker, they are right about one thing regarding the whole 9/11 tragedy - the government isn't telling us the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The government knows more than they would like for us to know. THey may have given us some information, but they haven't told us everything.

And when was the last time the government did tell us everything?

my god not this shit agaqin.I posted it here almlost 1 year ago.Can we give this a rest.It has been debunked.Bullshit.Leave this thing buried.

There is a website that destroys every single argument on that vid....lemme find it.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Theres another link on that page that pwns it.

e.g.

For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:

did you just time-travel here from 2005?

And when was the last time the government did tell us everything?
QTF.

Remember about the Loose Changers:
This is the same government that couldn't keep a 15-second conservation with Novak and Rove secret.
You expect them to ciover this up?

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

a good rebuttal. (better than the maddox one)

To the OP:

Holy living fly fuck, jesus on a fucking ROCKET!

WHERE did you FIND THIS?

THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING NEWS IVE EVER HEARD, YOU MUST HAVE YOUR OWN SPY AGENCY TO GET SOMETHING THIS BIG THIS HOT OFF THE PRESSES

To the OP:

Holy living fly fuck, jesus on a fucking ROCKET!

WHERE did you FIND THIS?

THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING NEWS IVE EVER HEARD, YOU MUST HAVE YOUR OWN SPY AGENCY TO GET SOMETHING THIS BIG THIS HOT OFF THE PRESSES

I know, some college student has toppled our mighty US government. Damn him for foiling near flawless execution and cover up the September 11th attacks by the entire US government. Who would've thought that the whistle blower would be some conspiracy nut, and not one of the thousands of government agents involved in the most complex, intricate, well-executed terrorists plots ever?

To the OP:

Holy living fly fuck, jesus on a fucking ROCKET!

WHERE did you FIND THIS?

THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING NEWS IVE EVER HEARD, YOU MUST HAVE YOUR OWN SPY AGENCY TO GET SOMETHING THIS BIG THIS HOT OFF THE PRESSES

I know, some college student has toppled our mighty US government. Damn him for foiling near flawless execution and cover up the September 11th attacks by the entire US government. Who would've thought that the whistle blower would be some conspiracy nut, and not one of the thousands of government agents involved in the most complex, intricate, well-executed terrorists plots ever?

Thats not necessary. I found something which I considered mildly interesting, and I never recalled seeing it on NSG, even though I was sure it had been up there. Perhaps I was interested to see the NSG reaction to it. Obviously its been hashed and rehashed here, but maybe I haven't been near a computer lately? I'm somewhat of a lurker, and don't make major posts often.

Or maybe I just made this thread because its important to me, Dodudodu, to piss you, New Genoa, off to the best of my ability.

As far as a conspiracy theorist? I'm not one, at all. I found some of the points which the tape made interesting, if not factual, maybe for no other reason than I thought it was complete bullshit. Why do you assume that as soon as I post this, I'm a "conspiracy nut?"

You label me conspiracy nut?

I label you flamer.:upyours:

The only surprise in the Pentagon nonsense is that the building took as much damage as it did. I'm deeply disappointed.

TERRORIST!!! OMG!!!:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:


-yawns-

Yay for loose change. Maybe I can find some on the ground and buy a condom to stick over the next dick head that posts this crap on NSG. :)

I don't care what anyone says, the evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon is as real as the evidence that a cruise missile hit the pentagon.

The evidence of what happened at the twin towers is so much more then what we know about the pentagon.

I want to see a clear picture of the pentagon when it was hit and the clean up afterwards.

I don't care what anyone says, the evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon is as real as the evidence that a cruise missile hit the pentagon.

The evidence of what happened at the twin towers is so much more then what we know about the pentagon.

I want to see a clear picture of the pentagon when it was hit and the clean up afterwards.

Read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Crash

Old. But hey, if you like scientific fallacies, you can drag it out all you like.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

*snip*

This has been debunked so many times it is pathetic.

This has been debunked so many times it is pathetic.

and it will be for many years. for some reason it is popular among high school - low level coolge students. guess it all has to do with the "evil" government out to get them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change&hl=en

Alright, this is a very long video (almost an hour and a half), but I've never seen anyone even mention it on NSG, even though I'm sure someone has somewhere.

Basically, this Loose Change video outlines the 9/11 events and tries to place a conspiracy theory on everything they possibly can: Whether or not it was a plane which hit the Pentagon, the possibility of government involvement. Its quite unoriginal in its theories, but it does raise a few decent points.

1. This regards the Pentagon, and whether or not it was a plane which impacted it. The video mentions that the engine pieces found at the site (there were only 2, which were obviously far smaller than that found in a Boeing Jet) could not have been from a Boeing Jet. It also points out that the size of the damaged area was not consistent with the damage caused by a 757-223; it was far too small a hole and there was no evidence of wing damage. Also mentioned are the fact that there were reports of cordite smoke, and the explosion at the Pentagon far similar to a cordite explosion (with photo comparisons), than to jet fuel.

2. It also questions whether the structural integrity of the WTC towers would have been damaged to the point of collapse by an impact. It also compares the collapse of the towers to a common demolition. Also mentioned was the WTC 7 building, which collapsed later in the day of 9/11 (that evening, after 4pm) due to a fire ignited from the collapse of the towers.

3. Going back to the Pentagon, it makes the point that the hijacker of the plane who hit the building was most likely not skilled enough a pilot to manage to fly a jet at the speeds which the plane crashed at.

My question: When the plane hit the Pentagon, it would have left a much larger debris field, wouldn't it have?

They show a tomahawk cruise missle impact later in the film, which seemed to me (I'm no expert, by any means) to be more consistent with the hole seen in the Pentagon, not of a Boeing 757.

I also found it interesting that the number of "puts," (basically stock insurance) skyrocketed for companies involving airlines, boeing and the WTC.

Theres tons more, far too much to mention in a single post. I personally don't think there was much, if at all, government involvement with the hijackers. However, there is some evidence which I think raises some questions, at the very least. Those are my major concerns up there.

What does everyone else think?

Ah, and here's the wiki article about the documentary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism
Scratch out the claims that a missile hit the Pentagon.



http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

1. This regards the Pentagon, and whether or not it was a plane which impacted it. The video mentions that the engine pieces found at the site (there were only 2, which were obviously far smaller than that found in a Boeing Jet) could not have been from a Boeing Jet.

The part they show is the rotor hub from a 757's engine compressor, the other is the diffusor case from a Rolls-Royce 535 engine, of the type Flight 77 used. You also forgot that they found seats, wheel hubs and the entire fucking left undercarriage of a 757 inside the Pentagon.

It also points out that the size of the damaged area was not consistent with the damage caused by a 757-223; it was far too small a hole and there was no evidence of wing damage.

Actually, there was, and the hole is more than large enough. Remember, the only part of an airliner that isn't hollow aluminium is the lower body; you wouldn't expect to see a cartoon outline of a plane punched in the Pentagon's outer wall.

Also mentioned are the fact that there were reports of cordite smoke, and the explosion at the Pentagon far similar to a cordite explosion (with photo comparisons), than to jet fuel.

Cordite being a propellant explosive which you wouldn't use to actually blow something up; it's used in bullets and naval gun charge bags, it's no payload explosive. This report of a smell of cordite [not 'cordite smoke'] was from Don Perkal, a lawyer. Would you expect a lawyer to be able to tell with authority the difference between cordite and burning jet fuel by smell?

2. It also questions whether the structural integrity of the WTC towers would have been damaged to the point of collapse by an impact.

Forgetting the part about the building's structural integrity being compromised by the impact and that steel loses 75% of its strength at less than half its melting point. Also forgetting that no skyscraper ever built has been designed to survive a hit from a 228,000-pound impactor carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and travelling at five hundred miles per hour; that's a projectile five times bigger than the largest airdropped bomb ever built, the T-12 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/t12-specs.htm), which was designed to destroy targets protected by dozens of feet of concrete. To make matters worse, the impact is thought to have blasted spray-on fireproofing material off the support beams.

The kind of hit the two WTC Towers suffered would sink a battleship, let alone place an office block beyond hope of repair. The opinion among actual experts [structural engineers, for example] is that it's amazing the WTC Towers stayed up as long as they did.

It also compares the collapse of the towers to a common demolition.

Forgetting that such a demolition would require teams of people working for months, laying tons of explosives and miles of cables without anyone noticing in a busy office building. You'd be talking about truckloads of explosives and equipment, dozens of personnel and weeks of drilling holes and carefully setting timers. And then this whole setup would be ruined anyway, because there's no way a controlled demolition setup would survive a plane hitting it.

In any case, real demolitions detonate explosives from the bottom floor to the top, not the top floor to the bottom. That absolutely did not happen on 9/11. People talking about explosions doesn't mean there were bombs: the survivors from the Titanic heard explosions as she sank, and I hope nobody tries to suggest someone blew up the Titanic. There's a lot of things in a building that can go bang [large capacitors, fuse and junction boxes, transformers, etc] and in the heat of the moment something like an elevator crashing to the bottom of its shaft would sound like an explosion too. You would expect to hear loud noises in such a situation, and it's no surprise at all that people did.

And do you seriously think the insurers of the buildings surrounding the WTC, or the insurers of the complex itself, would have paid out if there was serious reason to believe in an inside job?

Also mentioned was the WTC 7 building, which collapsed later in the day of 9/11 (that evening, after 4pm) due to a fire ignited from the collapse of the towers.

And nobody could imagine why a building with tanks holding 43,000 gallons of diesel sitting atop a four-inch gas main might burn rather fiercely? It collapsed because it was on fire and had been burning for hours. Loose Change's most ridiculous claim is that the WTC Towers and WTC 7 are the only buildings in history to collapse because of fire. They're only out by, ooo, a few entire cities [London, Bristol, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Chicago, Hiroshima, San Francisco...to name but a few].

Want a steel-frame building? McCormick Centre in Chicago, 1967, collapsed 30 minutes after the start of a minor electrical fire. The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania [1997] and the Kader Toy Factory [1993] were also collapses of steel-frame buildings, and during the fire at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia in 1991 firefighting efforts were abandoned after 11 hours due to fears of the precise type of pancake collapse that bought down the Twin Towers 10 years later.

My question: When the plane hit the Pentagon, it would have left a much larger debris field, wouldn't it have?

No. The vast majority of the aircraft ended up inside the Pentagon. There's plenty outside, mind, and some smashed lamp-posts to go with. Here's a test video of an F-4 Phantom hitting a reinforced concrete wall designed to resist nuclear strikes at 500 miles per hour. Notice how the jet is obliterated by the collision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw

Bear in mind the Pentagon is not designed to resist nuclear strikes, and the impacting jet was much larger, and you have...A neat central hole made by the heaviest components, with the remainder of the plane hideously fragmented and most of it propelled inside. Thank you.

They show a tomahawk cruise missle impact later in the film, which seemed to me (I'm no expert, by any means) to be more consistent with the hole seen in the Pentagon, not of a Boeing 757.

And what about the generators and cable drums which were damaged as the plane hit them? You think a Tomahawk can wrench a multi-ton generator out of place and still hit its target?

I also found it interesting that the number of "puts," (basically stock insurance) skyrocketed for companies involving airlines, boeing and the WTC.

No, they were entirely normal, actually. Airlines were doing poor business even before 9/11; indeed, there had been a downward trend in their stock for over a year in some cases. The large-scale trading in airline stock was traced to a couple of individuals with entirely non-sinister motives: the UAL puts were part of a strategy by an investor who also bought 115,000 UAL shares on September 10th, and the AA trading to a newsletter which recommended the trades to its subscribers on the 9th.

What does everyone else think?

I think you should read this. http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

There isn't anything in that documentary that's even close to valid.

teh shrubz a stoopid ebal jeenus!!!11 teh bush nazi set up a terrist atk wit da sody arabs wen he rigd the vot to divrt atenshn away from teh frod nd plunj us inot a nvr ending WAR for oil!!!1 he sabotajd teh econme n cut tax's os al teh mega corperashns he an his frends sectrly contrl cuud profit off of our enslavement n used a whether mashin to cas the huricans!!!11 i juts so hippy to c sumbode stnd fer teh truth!! ITZ A CONSPEARASEE!!!!1

Screw Loose Change: Not Freakin' Again edition tears through Loose Change like toilet paper.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&q=Screw+Loose+Change

The scary part is that american college professors are propagating this shit as fact.

The scary part is that american college professors are propagating this shit as fact.

Just goes to show that you can find an idiot in almost every part of life.

I wish to thank the folks that pulled some of the information aginst this video up as i had not read any of it before, anyone who remembers my limited past posts will know my original stance at least to some digree.

I am as of reading some of the information in this thread in a stance of uncertain and will not be bringing my opinion of this matter to any of my futer posts untill at some point i gain more info for one side or the other, and for them that dont know ill let them guess what my opinion of this video was before.

Good day/night to all.

I've heard rumors of bombs in the WTC and shit like that...but frankly even if it was a conspiracy, it wouldn't lower my opinion of the government any (which shows you how low it is to begin with)...power-brokers will be power-brokers. do people really need this kind of conspiracy stuff to prove that rich megolamaniacs don't care about human life and manipulate the general public? I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. between the Iran-Contra affair and our alliance with the Uzbek regime and any number of other things in recent and 18th/19th century history, if 9-11 were a conspiracy, it could hardly bring the government any lower than it allready was...
Well said Vegan Nuts.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not the Bush Administration let the September 11 attacks happen deliberately, or whether they let it happen thanks to them believing it was too absurd to be true or thanks to incompetence, or whether they orchestrated the entire thing.

To me, this is what does matter: they found an oppurtunity that helped their policies and agendas, and they capitalized on it.

To me, this is what does matter: they found an oppurtunity that helped their policies and agendas, and they capitalized on it.

Name me a president that would not capitalize on something like this!

Name me a president that would not capitalize on something like this!
Just for the record, I'm not an American. And second of all, who wouldn't use an oppurtunity if it meant to further or advance something, be it for something good or something bad (the two mentioned above are extremely rare to find being pure goodness or pure malevolence)? It's just that I feel that the Bush Administration and its consorts used the moment for their own agendas which give one an indication they may not be so good......

Just for the record, I'm not an American. And second of all, who wouldn't use an oppurtunity if it meant to further or advance something, be it for something good or something bad (the two mentioned above are extremely rare to find being pure goodness or pure malevolence)? It's just that I feel that the Bush Administration and its consorts used the moment for their own agendas which give one an indication they may not be so good......

Again, name me a president that has not taken advantage of a catastrophie?

Again, name me a president that has not taken advantage of a catastrophie?
I don't have to name one. The point I was attempting to communicate across, was this: "virtually everybody has taken advantage of something or some degree, and it shouldn't be ultimately too surprising".

I don't have to name one. The point I was attempting to communicate across, was this: "virtually everybody has taken advantage of something or some degree, and it shouldn't be ultimately too surprising".

That was what I was getting at.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change&hl=en

Alright, this is a very long video (almost an hour and a half), but I've never seen anyone even mention it on NSG, even though I'm sure someone has somewhere.

Basically, this Loose Change video outlines the 9/11 events and tries to place a conspiracy theory on everything they possibly can: Whether or not it was a plane which hit the Pentagon, the possibility of government involvement. Its quite unoriginal in its theories, but it does raise a few decent points.

1. This regards the Pentagon, and whether or not it was a plane which impacted it. The video mentions that the engine pieces found at the site (there were only 2, which were obviously far smaller than that found in a Boeing Jet) could not have been from a Boeing Jet. It also points out that the size of the damaged area was not consistent with the damage caused by a 757-223; it was far too small a hole and there was no evidence of wing damage. Also mentioned are the fact that there were reports of cordite smoke, and the explosion at the Pentagon far similar to a cordite explosion (with photo comparisons), than to jet fuel.

2. It also questions whether the structural integrity of the WTC towers would have been damaged to the point of collapse by an impact. It also compares the collapse of the towers to a common demolition. Also mentioned was the WTC 7 building, which collapsed later in the day of 9/11 (that evening, after 4pm) due to a fire ignited from the collapse of the towers.

3. Going back to the Pentagon, it makes the point that the hijacker of the plane who hit the building was most likely not skilled enough a pilot to manage to fly a jet at the speeds which the plane crashed at.

My question: When the plane hit the Pentagon, it would have left a much larger debris field, wouldn't it have?

They show a tomahawk cruise missle impact later in the film, which seemed to me (I'm no expert, by any means) to be more consistent with the hole seen in the Pentagon, not of a Boeing 757.

I also found it interesting that the number of "puts," (basically stock insurance) skyrocketed for companies involving airlines, boeing and the WTC.

Theres tons more, far too much to mention in a single post. I personally don't think there was much, if at all, government involvement with the hijackers. However, there is some evidence which I think raises some questions, at the very least. Those are my major concerns up there.

What does everyone else think?

Ah, and here's the wiki article about the documentary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism
Scratch out the claims that a missile hit the Pentagon.

There have been at least three threads about this. The conspiracy theory has been debunked soundly in each. Unfortunately arguing with the conspiracy theorists is about as productive as arguing with thick-headed creationists, so I leave you with this picture.

http://i13.tinypic.com/3yw70wo.png

That was what I was getting at.
Then we both have been essentially arguing for the same side haven't we?