There's no reason to believe his lies over the governments. He just appeals to peoples dislike and distrust of government.

Look up "how the holocaust was faked." There are some good arguments against it. Of course it's complete crap just like this.

There was a show on Discovery about the plane where the people fought back. They passangers called their families with their cellphones and some left messages. They played the messages on the show and they interviewed some of the family members. Are you telling me that they are all planted or paid?

Also I love the part where a few windows are blowing out on the towers and they claim it's from planted explosives. I'd have to believe if it really was a demolition there would be more obvious explosions and more than a few windows randomly blowing out.

---

Originally posted by -Jaguar-

There's no reason to believe his lies over the governments. He just appeals to peoples dislike and distrust of government.

There was a show on Discovery about the plane where the people fought back. They passangers called their families with their cellphones and some left messages. They played the messages on the show and they interviewed some of the family members. Are you telling me that they are all planted or paid?

Also I love the part where a few windows are blowing out on the towers and they claim it's from planted explosives. I'd have to believe if it really was a demolition there would be more obvious explosions and more than a few windows randomly blowing out.

---

Later on in the film it goes over (which other sources have as well) that the technology for cell phones to communicate at that altitude did not exist until 2004. I knew this before I saw this movie, and seeing it again under new evidence supports what I learned even more.

loose change is awesome, why? because the guy backs EVERYTHING up with pure fact.

people say, oh he's lying, how can you know he's telling the truth about all this 'evidence'? well.. take a look at the end credits, the guy gives the names of video's he used to take extracts from in his documentary. not only this, but if you visit his official website, (www.loosechange911.com), you'll find a section called 'evidence'. here it states

"We have done nothing extraordinary in terms of research. We also do not take credit for these people's hard work.

Also, take nothing we say at face value.

We highly encourage you to research this information yourselves and come to your own conclusions"

further down this page they list each peice of evidence they used in the documentary. they KNEW people would start saying "well how do we know they didnt just make this shit up?". go check it out for yourself, this should write off any claims of them making up bull shit.

don't get me wrong, i've never been a hugely anti government type person.... quite the opposite infact, i think governments if anything should be far harsher their people, bring back the execution penalty (in britain) etc etc. however, being a relatively open minded guy i CANNOT just let a documentary like this wander past and complete ignore it. the sheer amount of evidence is absolutely astonishing, forget all of the snippets from websites and leaked documents, look at the VIDEO evidence!

the fact that not a single black box flight recorder was found for ANY of the downed flights, even the one that crashed in pensylvania (sp), this is the first time in history a black box has been completed demolished by a crash. also, how the world trade center 3 (the smaller building near the trade centers) ALSO collapses, even though nothing hit it, and all the other buildings surrounding it (some closer to the trade centers) all stayed standing. the explanation for the building collapsing? falling debree from the trade centers set it on fire and it collapsed. as the guy says in the documentary, this is the third building in the history of man kind to have collapsed from a fire...... the first two being the twin towers.

the entire thing is so riddled with inconsistency i fail to beleive ANYONE, no matter how much they love their government, could write it off as nonsense. sure, maybe you don't beleive the US government staged the entire thing, but you CANNOT tell me that everything we've been told about 9/11 is truth.

why did osama bin laden state, literally 48 hours after the trade centers had collapsed that 'al quieda (sp) had NOTHING to do with it', then, like a week later change his mind entirely and take credit for the entire thing? surely he'd have been the first to brag about his well pulled off masterminded plan?

the funny thing I found is, that when i watched 9/11 unfold on television back in 2001, i remember thinking some of what the press were reporting simply made no sense. i remember them talking about a helicopter being sighted just before the pentagon exploded, i remember them talking about a plane circling above the twin towers just after the first had been hit... and i remember thinking to myself how odd it all seemed.

---

Originally posted by -Jaguar-

Also I love the part where a few windows are blowing out on the towers and they claim it's from planted explosives. I'd have to believe if it really was a demolition there would be more obvious explosions and more than a few windows randomly blowing out.

---

funny that hundreds of eye witnesses told cameras they heard a series of sharp cracks just before the trade centers fell? what would explain that? also the highly observed 'second' explosion from tower one, apparently comming from the basement?

did you even watch the documentary?

---

Originally posted by Hohbein

loose change is awesome, why? because the guy backs EVERYTHING up with pure fact.

---

You believe everything ever printed, filmed, or stated in an interview is "pure fact?"  Or do you just believe what suits the theory?

BTW, this is the 3rd or 4th time in 3 months we have had this exact same discussion about the 9/11 "facts."  Sadly, many of you still fail to recognize that believing one "side" or the other so blindly just leads to the mass injustice of the whole tragedy.  As I have said before, I recommend you study "Loose Change" and any of the other conspiracy theories with just as much suspicion as you do the government's. 

Hohbein, I know you said to check out their "evidence" list, but have you researched outside the framework given to you?  The problem with the list there is that it is like a lawyer "leading a witness."  They give you the information they want you to have, no different than what the government has done.

---

Originally posted by daeandor
You believe everything ever printed, filmed, or stated in an interview is "pure fact?"  Or do you just believe what suits the theory?

BTW, this is the 3rd or 4th time in 3 months we have had this exact same discussion about the 9/11 "facts."  Sadly, many of you still fail to recognize that believing one "side" or the other so blindly just leads to the mass injustice of the whole tragedy.  As I have said before, I recommend you study "Loose Change" and any of the other conspiracy theories with just as much suspicion as you do the government's. 

Hohbein, I know you said to check out their "evidence" list, but have you researched outside the framework given to you?  The problem with the list there is that it is like a lawyer "leading a witness."  They give you the information they want you to have, no different than what the government has done.

---

i don't really wanna get bogged down in an argument about this, as you said it's been done many times on these forums and its pointless really.

your quite right that alot of hte written evidence could indeed be presented in such a way, however there are some things you cannot ignore. the black boxes 'vapourising' from the flights, the fact that the plane that collided with the pentagon, and flight 93 that crashed in pensilvania both completely  vapourised on impact. the fact that the two 6 tonne alluminium engines from each plane vanished. the fact that eye witnesses said the 'plane' that hit the pentagon was a small, white, non-commercial plane with no markings on it what-so-ever. the fact that the owner of the twin towers signed a 3 billion dollar insurance policy 2 weeks before 9/11 took place, actively insuring the buildings against acts of terrorism. these aren't rumours, these are facts.

there are just too many innaccuracies to just ignore.... sure, it's fair enough if you don't beleive the government would do such a thing, however i think its healthy to ask the right questions.... and documentaries like this simply open peoples minds a little and get people asking these questions!

---

Originally posted by Phoenixs
There are certain facts that are mentioned in this "documentary" that are interesting, disturbing and deserve a thought or two. But it's the whole story he spins around these facts that is rather unbelieveable, the facts are examined rather loosly and it's almost all the time looked at from the side that supports his story. You should take the facts and check them yourself, from all sides and then make up your mind. Because that movie is neither well written or well made. It points out some facts, but not much of value besides that. Like daeandor said, you should threat it with as much suspicion as you would threat what the goverment says. Yes Hohbein, there are some valuable facts/claims. Some very interesting. But just because they are that, doesn't make the moviemaker correct with his "story". There can be another story/explanation just as well. 

---

of course, i quite agree with you here. what i'm trying to say is that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to 9/11. the government have quite obviously hidden many facts from the public, and why they have done this is still a mystery. i'm not saying this guy is definatly right in his theory, however his theory certainly does seem to fit rather nicely, especially with the ensuing 'war on terror' being taken to iraq, and now iran. it seems awefully like 9/11 was a rather well timed 'kick start' for this 'war', doesn't it? 

This is not a theory 

"Abstract reasoning; speculation."

This is a possibility

"The fact or state of being possible."

911 in Plane Site This guy has a great introduction (that talks about what I said above) and a great documentary that covers things not in Loose Change. The actual documentary starts at 1:41...so you can skip the musical introduction.

---

Originally posted by Wakizashi
Alien Autopsy was a better hoax than these films

---

Could you elaborate a bit more?

Film: 1

You: 0

Since I have discussed some of my reasoning before about why I think there is a 3rd explaination for 9/11, and don't feel like arguing again, I am going to pose a few tidbits:

• Did the flight recorders actually disappear? (Flt 93's voice recorder exists, the others really destroyed, unrecoverable, or missing?)
• Are other terrorist cells capable of planting evidence at the scene of the crimes?
• Are the terrorists capable of using remotely piloted vehicles (planes)?
• Do terrorist cells have the capability to wage an information war against American citizens in order to turn them against their government?
• If there were explosives in the 3 buildings at WTC, did the government have to plant them?  If not, did the terrorists have the capability?
• Could the owner of WTC been warned by the terrorists and not the government?
• Do terrorists have the capability to pose as, or have they infiltrated as, government officials?
• Are the true architects of 9/11 foriegn born or are they home grown using foreign terrorists as their "active" arm?

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

---

Originally posted by Wakizashi
Alien Autopsy was a better hoax than these films

---

Could you elaborate a bit more?

Film: 1

You: 0

---

What could I possibly tell you that could change your point of view?  Probably nothing short of recovering a second by second video account of the actual proceedings from all planes and from the interior of the building.  And even then, you would probably say, these videos were made in the same studio the Moon Landing was done in. 

These 'docu-fantasies' pander to a certain crowd.  Those that wish to believe will take any straw, no matter how frail and presumptuous, and use it to pat themselves on the back.  It is a strange phenomenon to say the least as mostly Bush detractors love to pin something on a man and administration, who by their own admission are the most inept in history. 

Furthermore, I would like to point out the references and sources cited by these conspiracy theory pipedreams.  In all citings, there is never any empirical evidence, no hard facts, only suspicion and theorys.  Needless to say, they may have 1 or 2 credible people on the giant lists, but strangely, those people are never cited on the record for anything substantial. 

Shall I elaborate further, or can I put a trivial "1" next to my name, and strike the score from the film's column as I have summarily dispatched you and the theory you seem to think is the truth?

---

Originally posted by daeandor

Since I have discussed some of my reasoning before about why I think there is a 3rd explaination for 9/11, and don't feel like arguing again, I am going to pose a few tidbits:

• Did the flight recorders actually disappear? (Flt 93's voice recorder exists, the others really destroyed, unrecoverable, or missing?)
• Are other terrorist cells capable of planting evidence at the scene of the crimes?
• Are the terrorists capable of using remotely piloted vehicles (planes)?
• Do terrorist cells have the capability to wage an information war against American citizens in order to turn them against their government?
• If there were explosives in the 3 buildings at WTC, did the government have to plant them?  If not, did the terrorists have the capability?
• Could the owner of WTC been warned by the terrorists and not the government?
• Do terrorists have the capability to pose as, or have they infiltrated as, government officials?
• Are the true architects of 9/11 foriegn born or are they home grown using foreign terrorists as their "active" arm?

---

Even if the terrorists did carry out the bombings, it would only mean the government were extremely incompetent if not criminally negligent. As far as I know, nobody has been fired.

Anyways, the terrorists have infiltrated our government at the highest level...*Cough*Bush*Cough*. I'm not joking. A terrorist of the USA is someone who wants to destroy it...right? Do some research on Patriot Act 1 and and Patriot Act 2. You really need to learn about that because 9/11 is the reason they exist. If 9/11 never happened then Patriot Act probably wouldn't. Most Congressmen who voted for it didn’t even have a chance to read it. wikipedia.com explains both patriot acts pretty well.

What they do is destroy our basic liberties. So 9/11 happens, everyone is scared and goes running for the government for answers and the government tells us we need to give up some of our liberties to be safe. Thats exactly what happened.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

---

Originally posted by Wakizashi

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

---

Originally posted by Wakizashi
Alien Autopsy was a better hoax than these films

---

Could you elaborate a bit more?

Film: 1

You: 0

---

What could I possibly tell you that could change your point of view?  Probably nothing short of recovering a second by second video account of the actual proceedings from all planes and from the interior of the building.  And even then, you would probably say, these videos were made in the same studio the Moon Landing was done in. 

These 'docu-fantasies' pander to a certain crowd.  Those that wish to believe will take any straw, no matter how frail and presumptuous, and use it to pat themselves on the back.  It is a strange phenomenon to say the least as mostly Bush detractors love to pin something on a man and administration, who by their own admission are the most inept in history. 

Furthermore, I would like to point out the references and sources cited by these conspiracy theory pipedreams.  In all citings, there is never any empirical evidence, no hard facts, only suspicion and theorys.  Needless to say, they may have 1 or 2 credible people on the giant lists, but strangely, those people are never cited on the record for anything substantial. 

Shall I elaborate further, or can I put a trivial "1" next to my name, and strike the score from the film's column as I have summarily dispatched you and the theory you seem to think is the truth?

---

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

Even if the terrorists did carry out the bombings, it would only mean the government were extremely incompetent if not criminally negligent. As far as I know, nobody has been fired.

Anyways, the terrorists have infiltrated our government at the highest level...*Cough*Bush*Cough*. I'm not joking. A terrorist of the USA is someone who wants to destroy it...right? Do some research on Patriot Act 1 and and Patriot Act 2. You really need to learn about that because 9/11 is the reason they exist. If 9/11 never happened then Patriot Act probably wouldn't. Most Congressmen who voted for it didn’t even have a chance to read it. wikipedia.com explains both patriot acts pretty well.

What they do is destroy our basic liberties. So 9/11 happens, everyone is scared and goes running for the government for answers and the government tells us we need to give up some of our liberties to be safe. Thats exactly what happened.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

-- Benjamin Franklin

---

I disagree.  The USA PATRIOT Act is a legislative miscarriage, but I fail to see the original intent of Congress and the Bush Administration as being to "destroy our basic liberties."  Our "basic liberties" are still intact, the USA PATRIOT Acts just fail the common sense test as a means of combating terrorism.  Americans got exactly the bill that they were screaming for immediately after the attacks.  I think what you mean to say is that it destroyed many of the checks and balances set forth by our forefathers.  I also don't expect those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act that circumvent checks and balances surviving review and challenge by the court system.  The Judicial Branch does not like to be left out of the loop in law, and in due time they will bring the act into line.

He makes you think and his theory is kinda plausable, but he doesn't really back it up more than anyone else's theories. Alot of the theory would be insanely difficult to prove one way or another though...

Like I said, makes you think, but if you consider that solid evidence then I feel for ya. There are holes in the official story but there are also alot of holes in his story. Whenever a story becomes as political as 9-11 the various sides of the3 issue ALL become so politicalized that they all are not completely trustworthy. They all twist "facts" and "truths" to back their side.