Yes, I did UTFSF, and though I didn't sift through all 8 pages of the one 9/11 related thread that came up for "loose change", that was not a thread specific to the documentary.

Have any of you seen this?

it resides freely here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4&q=9%2F11

i thought it was really good up until the last few minutes. the call to action thing was a little bit contrived, but necessary.

definitely an interesting perspective.

I'm bumping your thread over the other one because yours was posted first and Kerble wasn't doing his job.

I just saw this tonight after some 9/11 talk flared up on another messageboard today. Very good documentary, and yeah, the call to action thing was pretty annoying at the end (I didn't know about this movie before today, so I wasn't prepared for what was in it).

Generally, I don't fancy myself much of a conspiracy theorist, but I've always felt shit was afoot, and this just reaggravates my ire for the administration. Argh!

Good movie.

For those of us who don't want to be surprised, what's the doc about?

It's not one of those "9/11 was perpetrated by the US government" things, is it?

burun wrote:For those of us who don't want to be surprised, what's the doc about?

It's not one of those "9/11 was perpetrated by the US government" things, is it?

Nah, it presents even more outlandish conspiracy theories than that.

Shit like a 757 flown by a flight school washout executing a perfect 270 degree turn, dodging utility lines, never scraping the lawn of the Pentagon, and then burrowing a 20 yard wide hole through three walls of concrete fortified to withstand cruise missiles, never to be seen again.

Then there were those two skyscapers that collapsed when these other jets built perfect fires inside them that caused reinforced steel to melt at temperatures 300 degrees less than it normally would. And building WTC7 across the street, which wasn't hit by a plane but still collapsed anyway.

And something about passengers with futuristic cell phones that work at 30,000 feet on another airplane overpowering hijackers and drilling that plane into a hole in a Pennsylvania farm that looked about as big as something a backhoe could dig in five minutes. All while a different United Flight 93 was landing in Cleveland.

So don't watch it- it's all bullshit.

no offence but i think that the 2 planes that hit the towers were legit. all the malarky about missles hitting a split second before the impact are utter bullshit. truth is , no one knows what the hell happens when a jet that size collides into a building of that size. at the moment of absolute impact as in the very tip of the nose cone contacting the structure im sure wierd flashes , sparks, fires, electrical shit, who knows happens. this video documentary is veeeeery amatureish. no doubt the shit that hit the pentagon and the other plane taken down are strage cover ups. no one can deny that, but the whole , us govt did this bullshit needs to stop. its a discgrace and hell, im canadian, and a sceptic of everything. fuck the world is still flat!

sounds like inconsequential bullshit at that. is that really where they're coming from? walls designed to withstand cruise missiles? wtc7 collapsed "anyway?" cleveland? wtf/

I don't think either WTC tower could have collapsed within less than 2 hours from conditions caused by fire, and I don't subscribe to the "leading missile" theories.

Number one, jet fuel burns hot but that would have been exhausted quickly and the paper and building material fire that continued after could have never caused the heat needed to bow in those supports so evenly around the perimeter. And number two, the jet that struck WTC2 hit near a corner and much of the jet fuel appeared to burst out in a fireball away from the tower's interior- and yet, the building hit second collapsed first.

I'm no engineer. I just read a lot. There had to be planted charges. The collapse of the two towers defies credulity, but the collapse of WTC7 is beyond any explanation thus far suggested.

Planted charges = prior knowledge.

Best case scenario, a rogue element inside the government plotted it on their own ( and not even that secretly, if you look at the options trading on American and United in the days leading up to 9/11 ). But I don't personally believe that.

plus in times of stress, the human psyche starts doing wierd things. take that into account. but no, he doesnt even mention that, the thing that stikes me as odd is his explenation of how other buildings burned for 17 hrs and didnt collapse. did he even consider the structrual damage caused by a jet hitting that sucker at 70 mph? hmmm. lets think, yea thats going to weaken the fuck out of it thats for damn sure. im all for raising questions about coverups but lets be sane here, people died in those flights, if they were what he says they were (cargo planes strapped with missles) shouldnt everyone that was supposed to be on the plane that died be alive? i dunno its bullshit to be sure.

Please let me know that you folks are beyond this crap.

Take the situation seriously...this is not a hollywood movie. Try to be realistic. Try reason and logic. There is no "mystery". We were attacked for very simple reasons. You are not thinking "outside the box" if you go down this avenue. You are simply reaching.

Let us not forget the elementary.....the truth. It's really not that hard to understand.

In my view, just because you defy or question the right wing, it doesn't make a truism. Let's be realistic.

I'm open to any questions.

Yes, I am tired/drunk. But there is always tomarrow.

Bring it on...conspiracy twats. You are wasting the time of the serious subjects. But bring it on...

BadComrade wrote:Who said that the passengers called when they were at 30,000 feet? Did they say "Oh my god, I'm at 30,000 feet, and we've just been hijacked? The pilots flew pretty low to the ground if I remember... you know, so they could crash in to shit on the ground and everything...

The "30,000 feet" was only in reference to the calls allegedly made from Flight 93, the plane that went down in PA, allegedly.

BadComrade wrote:Let Popular Mechanics explain to you why there wasn't a "plane shaped" hole in the side of the Pentagon, and why the blast resistant windows didn't break, since you know... that's what they're designed to do.

I wouldn't expect a plane shaped hole in the exterior wall any more than I would expect a flying aluminum skin over truss rods to pierce through three walls reinforced to the degree that those walls were, no matter how fast it was moving.

I would expect neither.

However, I would expect to see all the alleged debris in the released photographs to match known parts from a 757, which it doesn't. And I would expect to see the holes through the walls that the plane allegedly hurtled through at least line up.And I would expect to see more than five frames of security video ( which don't show a 757 ) from an area with more cameras watching it than a Vegas casino.

BadComrade wrote:The most interesting thing I've seen from all of the conspiracy theory people is the "laser" target that appears on the side of the 2nd tower that got hit. Video cameras can pick up light that the human eye can't, yet it comes across the screen as visible (aim your remote control at your web/digi/video cam and press a button and see the flashing led). All that shit about radio controlled jets, etc is retarded. Videos that are on CNN, MSnbc, etc servers show this "painting" of light on the towers, and after they're hit, the light leaves, and is fixed on another building, etc.

Who mentioned these theories? Not me, and not the Loose Change documentary.

BadComrade wrote:WTC #7 fell after all of the debris of the twin towers blasted through the side of it as they collapsed, no?

Seven hours later? I thought the official story placed blame on the disruption of connected sub basements and foundations, as well as a fire.

BadComrade wrote:How old are you Clocker Bob?

As in, depending on your answer, I have a snappy retort waiting for you?