Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

Just a little point for the two who linked to maddox.

You just made no point or argument at all. Maddox is full of shit. The reason that they wouldn't be killed is quite simple. If they were killed, the attention would hype gigantically. Now it's just "an other one of those" consperacy theories. If the creators of the video were killed, it would skyrocket in credibility.

But that's just me. I personally find Loose Change 2nd quite convincing, but then again, I don't know all the facts. I'd need to read up on it. However, the story from the Bush administration sheems instable, at best.

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

I don't know the second version yet and I don't think I will watch it any time soon because those guys admitted that they wanted to make a fictional work in the first place, which doesn't exactly increase their credibility.

In their first edition they also displayed a lot of ignorance concerning strength of materials which makes me think that the rest of their assumptions is about as credible.

It's nice entertainment though (everybody likes a conspiracy).

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

That sums it up for me.

RIP to my good friend who died 5 years ago.
:flag:

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

Nothing worse than a loose change zealot, who can't understand the idea of a plane ramming into a building and being compressed like a tin can while exploding leaving little wreckage. Or that when you look at the side of a plane going really fast on a shitty camera, it looks like a long white blob (Missle Missle!). Or how the towers didn't collapse from the explosions, but instead that they fell from the destruction of supports by the heat of the fire and ofcourse destroyed support structures throughout the building and that there was alot of time in between the plane hitting it, and the buildings collapse, enough time for evacuations to take place in some parts of the buildings.

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

Aw hell man, Sam Fisher wouldn't show up and shoot them in the base of their skulls. They would die in a tragic car crash, something like that. Nobody would give two shits about these punks being offed, especially if it looked like accident.

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

Loose change 2nd edition was intresting. But I hope you also saw the documentary by Zembla showed before it? It pretty much showed the main evidence in Loose change as falls. Also notice how they play with words and facts.

Take the stuff that the twin towers could not have collapsed due to the airplanes alone. They only go into how a fire doesn't make a building collaps. This probably is true. If you would spread the kerozine of the airplane around in the WTC and set it on fire you would just have a big fire that eventually would have been put out. What they forget to go into is that a lot of the supports were destroyed, the fact it was not just an fire but more of an explosion (fuel tanks that go bang isn't the same as fuel on fire).

If you put your mind on zero and don't ask any questions or think about what they say then it might seem very convincing. But do what the video suggests itself, ask questions with all facts the video brings you and you will notice them pretty much only showing facts that aid their goal.

I won't even go into miss quoting people, qouting experts (but only those that favour the view of Loose change :rolleyes:) , quoting panicing people and only those who support the views of Loose change, them claimin that Bin Laden met with the CIA (the source being a single man in a bar somewhere...) etc. It's pretty sad actually. Pretty much everything in the video is a load of crap.

The only things that remain questionable is that third building next to the towers collapsing with the base giving in first. This can be controlled demolission OR a massive explosion (generators etc?) cuasing the basement to give way and the building to collapse. An other intresting thing are the money transfers made on 9/11 illegally out of the WTC and put options. Some people made millions that day but that only shows some people knew. This could have anybody though, from Al Quade or their allies to tipped of people or perhaps a few corrupt people working for the goverment. It doesn't prove "the adminstration knew and did nothing or planned it" ...

Fahrenheit 9/11 was more convincing, showing the Bush adminstration using 9/11 as an excuse for their goals, Bush, his henchmen and friends making money from 9/11 etc. That all might be true. The authorities might not have done everything they could to stop 9/11 from happening since there was not only much to lose but also much, a LOT to gain.

So I think some people might purposefully let it all happen because of what they could gain. I do not think the american goverment planned the attacks though, that's just silly and all evidence for that provided in Loose change is disproved in the documentary by Zembla anyway.

The documentairy aired by Zembla on 10 September from 22:35 - 23:20 (mostly Dutch though) can be seen by going to http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index...11a372b7ff6f23 then picking the orange button marked "bekijk uitzending" (view broadcast). You then probably will have to chose a mediaplayer type and your connection type in the panel in the right. Then pick "sla op" (save).

I disagree. Showing multiple perspectives on 9/11 on 10-9 (the day before the events) is valid and perhaps even a duty of the media. The media shouldn't show just one side of the story (wether it's the official story or an other) but several so you cna make up your own mind. The state channel airing this is called Nederland 3. They aired Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary by the channel staff disproving the "facts" in loose change and then loose change itself. I say that's pretty fair not? Always question people, even though the official story is likely to be true we shouldn't stop asking for things that aren't righ in that or demand to see evidence that is still missing or conviscated by the goverment.

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

It's been out for ages, and I saw it for the first time maybe March but I watched it again a few weeks ago. Initially I thought that every bit of their evidence was bulletproof, but upon watching it the second time I started to see possible holes in their argument.

I say that from memory of thinking that though; I don't actually recall any specific points they made which could have been 'piped up'.

There are certainly a lot of things the US Government need to clarify though, even if they are completely innocent. If it were Britain, the Freedom of Information Act would probably have forced the 'evidence' they pulled from the Petagon to have been released to the public eye.

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

Let's let this thread live. Better than closing it and having a new one get started in a month or so.

Go to Google Video and watch Screw Loose Change: Not freakin' again edition. That movie's a gem.

Corrected.

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

The executive branch?

Re: Loose Change - 2nd Edition
 

Loose Change, 1st or 2nd edition (which by the way even contradict each other at times) is complete and utter rubbish. It is however, entertaining. Too bad they do it at the expense of the victims.

Here's a great debunking of the 2nd edition. If you've seen Loose Change, read this as it's friggin' hilarious!