I know that there are people out there who think conspiracy theories are for the nut jobs. Still there are somethings out there that are logically explained whether you like it or not. I was given this DVD to watch and I went and found it on the official website. It is a documentary called Loose Change and like Farenheit 9/11 it talks of what the evidence we were allowed to see shows. It's up to you whether or not you want to believe it or think it is a load of crap. I will tell you this, some of the things mentioned can be found on the internet one being a special plan that was put together by conservatives like Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfield and Jeb Bush entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses.

So here is the link to the show. I do warn you that it is about 90 minutes in length but there is so much info there that I'll leave you to do the thinking.
Without further ado:

Loose Change (http://stage6.divx.com/Louder-Than-Words/video/1005782/Loose-Change) )



Any opinions welcome.

It's a load of nonsense. The only two things that made me think were that no fighter planes were available to intercept the hijacked planes (but this is not strange at all considering it was a peacetime situation), and that Usama ibn Ladin wrote with his right hand (which he does because he is a Muslim and as such not allowed to write with his left hand).

There are so many rebuttals out there on the Web that it's spooky, but you can start with doing a search on Google Video for Screw Loose Change (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-3214024953129565561&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=screw%2Bloose%2Bchange&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3) Fdocid%3D-3214024953129565561&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-3214024953129565561%26q%3Dscrew%2Bloose%2Bchange%2 6total%3D98%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type %3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H23snK4kPKX5Yutpf2o6wSTdYucBQw), which is essentially Loose Change with subtitles rebutting statements as they are made. It also links to critical sites early on.

I think we may never have all the information. I agree with DE that there are some holes in Loose Change specifically but there are other materials out there that do raise some interesting questions. Sadly, many of the rebuttal sites are no better than the sensational videos they hope to refute.

I actually do believe in conspiracy theories. It because we don't know everything about how the world runs. There can be some things that happen behind our knowledge, hidden committees.

However, the best conspriacy theories are the ones we'll never hear of...or even think of. Those conspiracy theories that are so hidden that nobody else can ever fanthom. Therefore, America would have not been able to done 9/11 due to the fact that some people think that America done 9/11. America never killed JFK, since some think America killed JFK.

So I don't worry about finding out what really happened. You can't. Just accept the apperances.

...Yeah. Sorry for the lame belief.

Like I said it is up to you whether or not you believe all or none or some. I have another video called Control Room which shows the Al Jezeera side of things during the Iraq war. A good historian will tell you that there are always two sides to the same story. The best example is the Civil War as it is called north or The War Between the States as the South calls it and as mach prefers it should be. It should also be noted that history is always written by the winners. Loose Change is merely another side to the same view.

As to the Rebuilding of America's Defenses, it is a real document that is available. I actually have read pieces of it and the thing reads like a Nostradamus thing or if you have read Mein Kampf, like that. Again it is what you are willing to make of it. I have some links to various articles about it.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html)

Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

And last but not least though I think I must be crazy. For all you peoples out there who think wikipedia is the greatest thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

I'm familiar with PNAC and I've read parts of their "manifesto".

If you're looking for more food for thought, check out 9/11 Mysteries - Part I: Demolitions.

Ah, the lovely prisms of intuition and personal perspective... always there to screw up a good story, and never let the truth be known.

Loose Change is very interesting, very sensational. It has to be - it's dealing with a sensational subject.

There are many holes, and many solid refutations. What remains of their story remains strong enough (because it jives with my personal organic hdd) to make me question the "official" story. Specifically, the controlled demolitions that I want to say "obviously" occurred.

I am going to google 9/11 Mysteries - Part 1: Demolitons, and find what I can crunch on. Thanks Achilles!

Just from a historical perspective, critical thinking tells us to never trust the government in charge to give accurate or unbiased accounts of events in our time - we should expect entirely the opposite.

I'm familiar with PNAC and I've read parts of their "manifesto".

If you're looking for more food for thought, check out 9/11 Mysteries - Part I: Demolitions.
Thanks for the input Achilles. I did read some parts myself and to be honest it puts into a certain perspective on what exactly is going on in our govt. Perhaps if you have other links, could you post?

I think it'd be easier to get this thread going if we stop just throwing links and rhetoric at one another and instead start discussing the actual claims, such as 'why were there no fighters launched', or 'a terror briefing depicted the WTC in cross hairs'. Who wants to start?

Edit: Figured I'd actually answer the two examples I provided:

First of all, there were no fighters launched to intercept the planes because 9/11 happened during peacetime, and no system existed to automatically alert NORAD of hijackings, meaning they had to be called manually.
They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us
Furthermore, scrambling aircraft and intercepting targets is not as simple as it sounds. NORAD received the first alert at 8:32, and scrambled aircraft minutes later, but when the fighters went up they were faced with 4500 radar blips, only three of which were hijacked planes. Normally, each plane has a transponder that identifies it to other traffic and to ATC, but the hijackers turned the planes' transponders off upon taking control of them.

As for the terror briefing depicting the WTC in cross hairs, it very likely is a reference to the '93 bombing of one of the towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_WTC_Bombing).

Next;)?

Source: Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html).

Loose Change is merely another side to the same view. Nonsense. Loose Change is a debunked conspiracy theory, whereas the official story is backed by evidence. Trying to compare the two is akin to saying that the idea of Intelligent Falling should be taken into consideration alongside the Theory of Gravity to explain why things fall.

Loose Change has had its chance, and it failed miserably.

One think that I find interesting about the whole 9/11 conspiracy debate is the amount of vehemence that I tend to see coming from the anti-conspiracy/conspiracy debunker camp. Maybe it's because I wasn't around for the JFK conspiracy hey-day and it was present then too, but it does seem that this attitude is unprecedented.

As I stated earlier, I don't completely buy either story so I'm not emotionally invested one way or another, but I am curious to find out why the "deniers" seem to be so genuinely p----- off by those that even admit to considering that there's more to the story.

Any insights?

Gee, I can't imagine why some people might find it offensive to suggest that the United States Government orchestrated 9/11 for some mysterious reason. That's similar to not offending a German by saying that they've still got the Gas Chambers running and are gassing any Jew they can get their hands on.

I'm not mad at people who are undecided, or those who feel there may be more to the story. I'm mad at those who make Loose Change-style claims and spend six years without looking up counterarguments.

When someone makes statements like 'one of the Flight 93 passengers was in on 9/11' or 'the fire fighters brought down WTC with explosives', it ticks people off. When those same people continue to make that claim for several years without ever bothering to produce evidence or checking counter-arguments, it should do far more than get people mad.

I can very well understand people who are seriously p----- at 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Gee, I can't imagine why some people might find it offensive to suggest that the United States Government orchestrated 9/11 for some mysterious reason. That's similar to not offending a German by saying that they've still got the Gas Chambers running and are gassing any Jew they can get their hands on.*shrugs*
I don't see people getting up in arms re: the accusation that Johnson orchestrated faked attacks against navy ships in the gulf of tonkin. I don't see people adamantly denying that Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned by the KGB. I don't see much spite directed toward those that believe that Rwandan President Habyarimana was assassinated by Hutus.

I guess I don't see why it is that we can so deftly spot the actions of corrupt governments in other countries, but assume our own to be somehow beyond that kind of behavior. I mean, if you really do think that the U.S. government is beyond reproach here, then why should it really matter to you what a few nutjobs think? It makes even less sense that such ramblings should enrage you.

My 2 cents.

I'm not mad at people who are undecided, or those who feel there may be more to the story. I'm mad at those who make Loose Change-style claims and spend six years without looking up counterarguments. I think it's essential to look at both sides. FWIW though, if the "official story" (sorry, don't know what else to call the non-conspiracy version) was so open-and-closed, I would expect clearer arguments and better evidence. I think it's kinda sad that the gold standard for 9-11 conspiracy dubunking is currently a questionable Popular Mechanics article.

When someone makes statements like 'one of the Flight 93 passengers was in on 9/11' or 'the fire fighters brought down WTC with explosives', it ticks people off. I hadn't heard either of those. I don't recall Loose Change specifically making either argument. Also, I don't think anyone seriously believes that the fire department placed explosives in any of the WTC buildings (but I could be wrong).

When those same people continue to make that claim for several years without ever bothering to produce evidence or checking counter-arguments, it should do far more than get people mad. Do you get angry at people that don't believe that Elvis is really dead? I get that this isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison, but in a way it kinda is.

I can very well understand people who are seriously p----- at 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I understand it too, but I think in a different way. I think that most people acknowledge on some level that if they are wrong about what they believe, then the implications are huge and no one wants to have to deal with that, so emotions run high. That's my take on it anyway.

I don't see people getting up in arms re: the accusation that Johnson orchestrated faked attacks against navy ships in the gulf of tonkin. I don't see people adamantly denying that Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned by the KGB. I don't see much spite directed toward those that believe that Rwandan President Habyarimana was assassinated by Hutus.

The US Military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident#Differing_views_of_the_Inc) ident) (the Vietnam forces did fire first), the Russian Government (http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-133-28.cfm) (Britian is framing an innocent man for the murder of a dissent, while slethering a terrorist), and the French Judiarcy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6179436.stm) (the Rwandan President was indeed murdered by Tusti rocket attacks orschated by the current President of Rwanda) all disagree with you. They would indeed be ready to go to arms in order to defend their viewpoint. :)

I guess the real reason people are annoyed is that people can use the "America did 9/11" HPYPOTHESIS (we got to use current scientific terminology here) as a justification to rebel against America...or possibly, to do actual, "real" terrorist attacks. Then again, the people that I know of who already lean towards said theory would be somewhat leaning against America as well.

September 11 Didn't Happen is worth watching. I'll pester a computer literate friend to put it up. Also try Fahrenhype which exposes the deceits of 9/11 conspiracies in general and Moore's in particular.

On Loose Change, I can understand how people can look at the evidence in it or the filmmakers can piece together the evidence and believe that it was committed by Bush. Another friend of mine enjoyed shooting down these conspiracy theories asked this question, if it was a government plot why cripple itself to the extent that the destruction of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, as well as the fourth plane's target, would have done? An attack on the World Series, Superbowl, Wrestlemania, not only would have caused a much larger number of deaths further inflaming the American people it would not cause the damage that terrorists did cause on 9/11.

When someone makes statements like 'one of the Flight 93 passengers was in on 9/11' or 'the fire fighters brought down WTC with explosives', it ticks people off.It never made that claim. What they suggested was that someone, preferrably someone with demolitions experience rigged a series of explosions. The documentary also never said that a person on Flight 93 was involved. I don't study things for no good reason. I did examine photos of various crash sites of planes. While I have never seen a real life demolition, I have seen clips of them. Like probably many others, I am unsatisfied with what the Govt. gave as explanation. Alot of things don't add up to a lot of things. I was never satisfied with the whole gotta go in an remove Saddaam so suddenly after not finding Osama. Somehow I get the feeling that people forgot what happened with Watergate and Nixon.

Frankly, who in the US administration has the gumption, the lack of morals and the intellect to put together a conspiracy such as would be required for something like the September 11th 2001 bombings?

And no, I won't call it '9/11'.

The arguement is that Bush and his cronies would, and there have been plans like this before. Look, Bin Laden claimed responsibility, video tape doesn't lie.

On people being angry over 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it's the same as Holocaust deniers, Communist apologists and the like. They wish to shift the blame from those responsible to someone or something they can attack, whether it be Bush (outrage that he won the election) Iraq (the conspiracies leading to the conclusion that it was to justify war) or whatever target takes their fancy. Sedition? Those who would even think of the idea, they see Bush as guilty until they prove him innocent and yet scream about those who are snapped up on suspecion of terrorism. What? Do they want further terrorist attacks or something?

And no, I won't call it '9/11'. Ah, I wish I had your fortitude. I resisted for as long as I could but apparently even I can be assimilated. Kudos to you, sir.

The arguement is that Bush and his cronies would, and there have been plans like this before. Look, Bin Laden claimed responsibility, video tape doesn't lie.

On people being angry over 9/11 conspiracy theorists, it's the same as Holocaust deniers, Communist apologists and the like. They wish to shift the blame from those responsible to someone or something they can attack, whether it be Bush (outrage that he won the election) Iraq (the conspiracies leading to the conclusion that it was to justify war) or whatever target takes their fancy. Sedition? Those who would even think of the idea, they see Bush as guilty until they prove him innocent and yet scream about those who are snapped up on suspecion of terrorism. What? Do they want further terrorist attacks or something?

Ergh. Listen, I'm no 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but I am upset about people being upset about them.

The reason I dislike this sentiment is that we believe in conspiracy theories all the time. I believe, for instance, than Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Do I have any proof? Nope. Do I have an ultieor motive in claiming Iran has a nuclear bomb (I hate Iran)? Well, prehaps. But that doesn't mean my theory is automatically wrong and must be condemned and cursed! The only difference between 9/11 conspiracy and my conspiracy? My conspiracy is accepted by major parts of the media and the Executive Branch, but that still doesn't mean it's supposed to be accepted as "total unconditional truth that is not at all a conspiracy theory made by a madman". It's still a conspiracy, one without any evidence but the "I hate Iran, Iran must be evil, building nuclear bombs are evil, hence Iran is building a nuclear bomb"...and a couple blurry photos just to make sure. As I said before, I believe it, but I have no proof whatsoever. Oh well.

The reason I dislike this sentiment is that we believe in conspiracy theories all the time.

It might have something to do with there being no basis of fact but I don't believe in conspiracy theories. There are some that bring up some good points but I look at, say, Iran wanting to build a nuke, and say it's possible but what basis of fact is there in it?

But that doesn't mean my theory is automatically wrong and must be condemned and cursed!

Who's to say it is? All I did was ask a simple question. Is that allowed?

{And don't you dare put Commie apologists and Holocaust deniers in the same spot!

I just did. You cannot tell me that part of it is people being against America.

Still, at least this dissocation from Stalin seems pretty effective, which is why they should not be in the same category as Holocaust Deniers.

Oh? There are those who are quite successful in promoting anti semetic hatred of the Jews by screaming that the Holocaust was a hoax. If the effectiveness of it all is your basis on whether or not they should be compared then by rights they should be mentioned in the same breath.

In the same way, I'd put them in the same spot as 9/11 theorists, in that they are not trying to push an ideology, but influence opinons against a different group (say, against America).

Exactly, which is what makes their actions so dangerous, as they are trying to promote people against America.

I just did. You cannot tell me that part of it is people being against America.

The reason is that, according to me, the Commie apologists can be more persausive to a third-party than the Holocaust Deniers. The Holocaust Deniers deny the Holocaust, the Commie apologist does not deny the crimes of Stalin, they just claim Stalin is not Commie, because Commies would NEVER have committed those crimes.

EDIT: Basically, the Holocaust Deniers are trying to attack Jews. The Commie Apologists are merely defending Stalin's behavior or claiming that Stalin is really not a Commie. Two totally different approaches.

And no, I won't call it '9/11'.I don't refer to that either.

The reason I dislike this sentiment is that we believe in conspiracy theories all the time.If that is so then we believe the fact that Saddaam had WMD's. Oh and don't forget the chemical warfare too though I think we know that the shelf life of anthrax is three months and not years :D

If that is so then we believe the fact that Saddaam had WMD's.

:D

But that just proves my point very well. 54% of Americans (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/20/105430.shtml) did believe in that conspiracy in a poll in Aug. 20, 2004. Probraly dropped off to the 30's, but there has been some books written by people stating that the WMDs are hidden in Syria now.
***
It might have something to do with there being no basis of fact but I don't believe in conspiracy theories. There are some that bring up some good points but I look at, say, Iran wanting to build a nuke, and say it's possible but what basis of fact is there in it?

But the problem is that what if you don't have time to evaluate facts? If you are running the world in the middle of a crisis, and there is lots of paranoia and fear about the different factions doing evil, evil stuff, you can't sit there and say "There are valid points, but I will wait until later to decide." If you do so, you lose valuable time to counter whatever threat you are facing...

Basically, the Holocaust Deniers are trying to attack Jews. The Commie Apologists are merely defending Stalin's behavior or claiming that Stalin is really not a Commie. Two totally different approaches.

Fair enough. I'm not sure if Stalin was a Communist based on his actions, but by the same token it would seem to be excusing his actions. By the same token I can understand that Communists (Sociallists?) would want to have nothing to do with him.

But the problem is that what if you don't have time to evaluate facts?

We operate under the presumption of innocence, with good reason. I remember a story about a man who believed someone raped and murdered his wife. He went out to confront him and later the suspect was found dead under a car. Now as it turned out he was guilty, and despite the suspecion that he was killed rather than it being an accident as reported it was swept under the carpet. Imagine if the evidence showed that he wasn't the rapist? Well, same story, another suspect was hounded by the police about a crime he committed, in fact they hounded him into his grave. The man took his daughter and killed her and himself, only for the police to find out he wasn't responsible. There's no good going off half cocked, that was America's mistake.

I'm not sure if Stalin was a Communist based on his actions, but by the same token it would seem to be excusing his actions.He was a facist. Again the whole Commie scare had to do partly because the geniuses in DC at the time didn't know the difference between a Nationalist and a Communist and Socialist. The only reason Castro got labeled as such is because the USSR offered him a better deal for a fuel source. Castro was a Nationalist, not a Communist. The same with Ho Chi Minh who in fact wanted his country free like ours.

I guess the point is that it is easy to criticize in hindsight but you think that the geniuses in DC would have learned something from all this. In some cases, they haven't.

He was a facist.

I think it might be better to call Stalin a "Stalinist" as it seems to be the most accurate of labels and it's less of a political slur as "communist" and "fasicst". Trosktists and other Communist groups may hate Stalin, but Stalin's supporters saw Stalin as a hero. Stalin likes what he did, so he's a Stalinist, as a Stalinist is one who approves of Stalin's ideas.

Is Stalinism the legit form of Communism, or is it "State-Sponosred Capitalism" according to other Communists? Too much debate and arguments over this thing...not really that useful and overall sort of boring. It really depends on what Communist you talk to.

Actually you can single out Joe McCarthy for much of the anti communiost paranoia. The Cuban Missile Crisis didn't help either.

Folks, this thread is about Loose Change and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please make new threads or post in appropriate current threads about Stalin or Holocaust denial.