33 replies to this topic

[zaccariah2005]

The above link is a link about many conspiracy theories involving september 11. I think that it is something intersting to discuss about. It is a 45 minute long video (the link is the first of six parts check the user's profile for the other parts.). I think it is sad that this video does not have a higher view count as he does make many valid points. Anyway, I think this would be an intresting topic to discuss.

[Transparent Reality]

It's hard to take this seriously when taking in account the first two tags on the video. :/

[zaccariah2005]

I didn't make it if that is what you are thinking. Somebody showed it to my eigth grade class and I decided to search for it today. But try to ignore that, I want to see people debate about this.

[Alpha2005]

Ignorance preys on the weak.

[moeazy123]

Transparent, on Aug 24 2006, 07:25 PM, said:

It's hard to take this seriously when taking in account the first two tags on the video. :/

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL omg thats funny

[katinka]

There's a freshman coming in who's very into conspiracy theories. Then again, he's also into racist, sexist, homophobic, and other insulting comments. And disrupting my sleep at 1a.m. So yeah... 9-11. I don't know. I think we should focus on places where we actually know the gov't is lieing.

[zaccariah2005]

"9-11. I don't know. I think we should focus on places where we actually know the gov't is lieing."

Skip to the conclusion. It is something that we have to focus on.

[tycoonboy388]

Loose Change is filled with tons of conspiracy theories about 9/11 and some of them are way too plausible to be thrown right out. When you think about it, no one has benefited more from 9/11 than the Bush Adminsitration and his agenda. Sometimes, the more unreal it is the more plausible theories might actually be.

[Transparent Reality]

It sounds like there's enough material floating around to form some conclusions, but there's the issue of motive. I can see faking the pentagon incident as reason to go to war, but why throw away countless civilian lives at the World Trade Center? That's far beyond the limits of human conscience.

As a side note, hardly anything sets me off more than when Bush mentions "evil," in his speeches.

[techkid]

Transparent, on Aug 24 2006, 11:59 PM, said:

It sounds like there's enough material floating around to form some conclusions, but there's the issue of motive. I can see faking the pentagon incident as reason to go to war, but why throw away countless civilian lives at the World Trade Center? That's far beyond the limits of human conscience.

There actually might be a reason to take down the WTC. The bombing of the Pentagon would not have, in my opinion, given Bush his 90+ percentage approval rating that he enjoyed after 9/11. I watched that video about half a year ago, and at the end of it I wondered, wasn't one of the planes supposeed to hit the White House? Then why would Bush plan to destroy the place he was residing at?

[Alpha2005]

I find it much easier to make sense of that a people that regularly burns our flags and chants "death to america" is able to pull this off... instead of our very own government.

However, perhaps the government let it happen.

[Transparent Reality]

Alpha2005, on Aug 25 2006, 06:51 AM, said:

I find it much easier to make sense of that a people that regularly burns our flags and chants "death to america" is able to pull this off... instead of our very own government.

However, perhaps the government let it happen.

My sentiments exactly. I mean, if a group of people in politics managed to pull something like this off, I think it would be pretty damn hard to keep a straight face. (Oh, but politians aren't people, right? My bad. ) I don't think Bush is a lunatic bent on destroying civilization or anything. I think he's just, uh - not very smart. To quote Tony Blair: "How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?"

[leo2car]

i think one good think can come form this: the release of more information by the government and the study of every thing by normal people.

On Sept 11, CNN Pipeline is replying CNN Coverage of the attacks, i would watch it but it is a school day.

Conspracy theiries are made becase we like to think the world is not that simple, a group of about 20, take 4 planes and fly them into important buildings.

But I do wonder about what he said about the petagon.

[Willis]

I only saw a few frames, so I'm taking a guess at this. It didn't look like Loose Change. If you really want some conspiracy theories, I'd say Loose Change has it. I was pretty convinced, but it's none of my business anyway what people think happened.

[FollyOfIcarius]

Zaccariah have you posted info on the 9/11 conspiracy theory because you believe it or because it takes away focus from muslims.Just curious?I'm not trying to offend you.

[EndocrineFlippa]

there are hundreds of there 9-11 theories out there and all of them have inaccurate information and huge holes in them...

Loose Change is no exception, heres some inaccuracies from Loose Change taken from wikipedia:

Quote

The original release of Loose Change Second edition stated that New York's Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 in 1945. It was actually a B-25 Mitchell, an aircraft less than one-third the size of a B-52 (the first prototype B-52 would not fly for another seven years). The authors have since acknowledged this error and fixed it in the "Recut" version.

The original release of Loose Change Second Edition suggested that $167 billion in gold was stored in vaults beneath the World Trade Center, and that only $200 million of that amount was recovered. This amount would have exceeded the entire amount of you.S. gold reserves by approximately $67 billion, and would be about 56% of the world's gold reserves in September, 2001. Again, this error was corrected in the recut version. It has been claimed all the gold stored in the WTC complex was in fact recovered. [10]

The film focuses on the wrong type of engine for Flight 77. Bollyn, the reporter of American Free Press that Loose Changes uses, had contacted the factory in Indiana which makes engines for small planes like the Cessna Citation and Global Hawk, rather than the plant in Quebec that overhauls the 757 engines or the factory in Derby, England. Loose Change implies 757's only have Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy. This is incorrect, because the engines used in Flight 77 are Rolls-Royce engines. (Note) In the Second Edition however, it is clearly mentioned that Pratt & Whitney has redirected Loose Change to Rolls-Royce.[11]

These and other inaccuracies have been addressed in the recut version of Loose Change Second Edition release of the video. [2]

heres another for you:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html#...hey%20made%20of?

this is from screwloosechange.blogspot.com

Quote

Some of these are a bit redundant, since we have already covered many of the topics, but I wanted to produce a list of the top lies and deceptions of Loose Change. As you can tell from reading this blog and the Reader's Guide, there are literally hundreds of things wrong with the movie, but I wanted to compile a short (relatively speaking) list of the ones that really slap you in the face. I will probably post this up as a DOC or a PDF eventually. More to follow...


1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines,

Truth: Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place. Source

3. Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane.

Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time. Source

4. Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.

Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source


6. Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.

Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source

7. Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines.

Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source

8. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior.

Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. The engine in question is consistent with that of the Rolls-Royce RB211 used by the 757. Source and here

9. Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.

Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response. Source

10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?

Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source

So please, next time do some research before you believe some BS conspiracy thoery

[00zeme]

Very impressed by endocrine. Thank you for bringing out some research.

[chitownquantumboy]

bravo, although there were some things on the youtube video that remain unexplained, such as the little light before the planes hit the towers. Still though, the theory looks kinda stupid now.

[zaccariah2005]

"Zaccariah have you posted info on the 9/11 conspiracy theory because you believe it or because it takes away focus from muslims.Just curious?I'm not trying to offend you."

No offense taken. For me the video just brought up a lot of questions about the possibility of a new world order.
Anyway, it is not impossible that muslims did not do this. There are many islamic extremist today. If they did it, then, they did it. However, I like to note that these people are misguided and are ignoring the teachings of the quran and sunnah.
Prophet Muhammad did not tell us to kill innocent people. When the muslim army went to fight during the time of the prophet, they were not allowed to kill women or children. In fact you can't even cut down a tree. And when that army went for conquest they always warned the people. It is either you pay the jizyah, you give up and accept the muslim rule or the muslims will come and fight. What has happened following the prophet's death is debatable. But, what I am trying to get at is that, muslims are not crazy people, who are only thinking about jihad all the time. Yes, we do believe in conquest. but, so did many other nations, including the US (because they are not in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction).

[chitownquantumboy]

zaccariah2005, on Aug 28 2006, 08:31 PM, said:

"Zaccariah have you posted info on the 9/11 conspiracy theory because you believe it or because it takes away focus from muslims.Just curious?I'm not trying to offend you."

No offense taken. For me the video just brought up a lot of questions about the possibility of a new world order.
Anyway, it is not impossible that muslims did not do this. There are many islamic extremist today. If they did it, then, they did it. However, I like to note that these people are misguided and are ignoring the teachings of the quran and sunnah.
Prophet Muhammad did not tell us to kill innocent people. When the muslim army went to fight during the time of the prophet, they were not allowed to kill women or children. In fact you can't even cut down a tree. And when that army went for conquest they always warned the people. It is either you pay the jizyah, you give up and accept the muslim rule or the muslims will come and fight. What has happened following the prophet's death is debatable. But, what I am trying to get at is that, muslims are not crazy people, who are only thinking about jihad all the time. Yes, we do believe in conquest. but, so did many other nations, including the US (because they are not in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction).

By saying new world order, are you refering to the illuminati or the freemasons? If so you can have fun looking at the one dollar bill and thinking about why it says "in god we trust" and also says "a new secular order/a new world order" in latin. Conspiracies are fun.