[Goatgirluk]

Loose Change, the documentary about conspiracy theories and the attack on the world trade centre, is going to get a UK release to coincide with anniversary of 9/11. Although in the UK we put the month second like so- 11/9, I wonder how that will pan out over here.

Government agents spying on you ?

A link to black listed news.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/

[Dick Handsome]

Your mom's loose.

[Zero]

After watching the video I have to say it's very cleverly done. They throw lots and lots of claims at you most of which the ordinary person have no chance of having information about. Over time it adds up, and you get the feeling that "if at least one of these weird things are true, the government must have been in on it". Problem is, pretty much all their claims instantly collapse when examined by experts. I recommend watching Screw Loose Change as well/instead, an edited version with comments added in and explanations on where the makers of "Loose Change" go wrong. The amount of quote mining and the way they select what to show for manipulative purposes while claiming to be after "The Truth" is astounding. The very same people they use footage of to advance their claims often completely invalidates them, sometimes in the few seconds after "Loose Change" makes the cut. Funny how they seem to leave those parts out.

Refuting every claim is hard though, so when watching pro-conspiracy material, I try to use this mindset:
If we assume that a conspiracy took place, is this how they would do it? Would there be obscure "hints" left by purpose or mistake (such as ambiguous symbols on official documents), while at the same time no single piece of hard evidence - the kind that can stand up to inspection by experts? The powers and reach of the supposed conspirators stands in contrast with the kinds of mistakes they apparently left lying around for film school dropouts to find.

Also, any conspiracy that ascribes competence to a government clearly needs to be revised.

[FunkBone]

I watched Screw Loose Change and I did not find that it effectively debunked anything. Anyone who does not realize by now the scope of this event, the precursors leading up to it, the coincidences surrounding it, the cooperation that had to occur on many levels over a considerable period of time is either not interested or not paying attention. The official story is for the stupid. Don't be stupid, Zero. I like you. Did you ever see Loose Change without the overlaid 'debunking' comments distracting from the point of view being offered? Forget that one. Have you been to the collection of 911 videos thread? You could not possibly debunk all the points made.

"Problem is, pretty much all their claims instantly collapse when examined by experts."

That can easily be said of the official story, particularly how the buildings were destroyed by fire. ALL physical evidence insists that the destruction was caused by strategic placement of thermate.
Try using this mindset: Pretend you know nothing about anything - never heard the official story or the conspiracies - just had all the puzzle pieces thrown at you at once. The pieces that seem to not quite fit obviously belong somewhere else, yet they were in the box with the rest of the pieces so must be included. But how, Zero? My mind is open to your explanation of the events. How are you going to convince me that this was not the work of the illuminati?

[Goatgirluk]

I haven't watched Screw Loose change yet, infact I haven't watched all of Loose change yet! so, I'll comment back when I have. I see FunkBone had already added a link, but they get lost when so many are added at one time. I like Zero too...so, er....down boy.

Your mom's loose.

I'm not too sure as to what you are insinuating here, loose morals ? but then it's Dick we are talking about, so I'll drop to his level and say 'wizards sleeve' ?. In your dreams busta, her dance card is FULL.

[gonzo]

Zero,

I've seen enough of your explanation on the mainstream news to last me a fucking lifetime. It's about time something gives another perspective. Next you're gonna tell me that JFK was assassinated by a lone gun man. Do us all a favor, don't be a fucking moron. If you trust the shit that is in the whitehouse and all the bought and paid for politicians to tell you what happened, I feel sorry for you. Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Why were Bin Laden's immediately flown out of the country? Why was Building 7 and info about the Sauds intentionally left out of the 911 Commission report? You're probably thinking it was in the interest of National Security. Ugh! (Charlie Brown style) You make me fucking sick. The list goes on of unanswered questions and loopholes in their "official" STORY. And they (the NeoCons and Fox News) continue to pounce on anyone who questions it... I guess the same way I'm pouncing on you, but hey one good turn deserves another.

I guess we're protectin' our freedom by havin' the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Torture, Stolen Elections, Touch screen voting with no paper trail, and George "The fuckin' best President ever" W. Bush occasionally declare his dictatorship. Go back to bed Moron. "You're government is in control. You are free to do as we tell you".

And Doctor Dick... Fuck you!

[Zero]

The number of unwarranted assumptions in your reply is staggering, and I'm not sure why I'm replying as I fully realize that neither you or FunkBone (someone who recently posted about not believing the earth was a sphere) will be convinced by any of this. I will not bring up specific claims made by one side or the other here because it will quickly spiral out of control and I frankly have better uses of my time. We're not past page one yet and there's already a reply consisting mainly of this:

don't be a fucking moron [...] I feel sorry for you [...] You make me fucking sick [...] Go back to bed Moron

I will not reply again to this thread. I realize the futility of this discussion and take part in it with this single post against my better judgment.

• You assume that I take the word of the "main-stream media" on everything. This is wrong, but probably hard for me to "prove" to you without signing up for a specific conspiracy theory. A good dose of skepticism is helpful when taking in information from any source. I do not feel any need to exhaustively lay out my political views and philosophy on everything, but suffice it to say I'm for legalization of certain drugs, against organized religion, believe "free will" to be an illusion and that we will construct machines that surpass humans and radically change the world within a couple of decades. I'm aware that some of these claims sound strange without being discussed and explained in context, but hopefully you can infer that I'm, if nothing else, not just taking my world view from a readily digested source.
• You assume that I approve of or support the Bush government. Nothing could be further from the truth. My initial reaction when following the US presidential election in 2000 (not that I agree with much Al Gore stood for back then either, but compared to Bush you'd be hard pressed to find someone I'd not rather see) was to seriously doubt how the human civilization would survive the next four years. The actual presidency was less catastrophic than what I had expected in most areas, but the same or worse in others. Suffice it to say, I have trouble finding examples on any piece of policy I would agree with. You would think this part of my first post would serve as an indication:
  

  Also, any conspiracy that ascribes competence to a government clearly needs to be revised.

• You assume that I have reached my views on the status on the "grand conspiracies" (9/11, JFK, the moon landing, UFOs, ...) without any thought process on my part. That's wrong. I've come to the conclusions I have after finding the available information about the event and trying to assess the likelihood of a conspiracy taking place. The less proof available and the grander the implications are, the more suspicious you should become. The very best "evidence" on a 9/11 conspiracy is "inconsistencies" which may very well be hard to explain for you or me, but more or less all of them fall apart when examined by professionals. You really do need a very bleak world view to imply that all scientists, engineers and other expert commentators of the world are being controlled by the conspirators.
• You assume I'm against anyone threatening the status quo of the current explanation on an event. I agree that questioning authority is almost always a positive thing, but there's such a thing as taking it too far. There's no doubt to me that the makers of "Loose change" selected what to show and how to show it to mislead the viewing audience. The question of whether it was deliberate (if they believe it themselves) is harder to answer, but not really relevant. If their version of the truth can't stand on its own without misrepresenting people and evidence, it is clear to me that there is great need for suspicion.

Bush benefited from 9/11, is it therefor reasonable to think he caused it? If one of my rival co-workers is hit by a bus and I benefit from it professionally, did I cause it? If you wanted to imply that, you would also need proof of some kind. If you really wanted to believe it but lacked any hard evidence, you could go through my emails, IM logs with friends and so on, until you found something you could take as a metaphor for me planning to run down my colleague, or an "encrypted message" that when interpreted in the view of wanting to believe seemed to indicate that I was involved in a planned murder but covered it up. You could make a two-hour documentary pieced together of quotes taken out of context from people talking about me, symbols I drew in third grade that were supposed to mean something, interviews with "experts" talking about me but being selectively edited to present the "conspiracy".

But of course, you wouldn't, since I'm not interesting enough. If I was a public figure with lots of power though, and someone with enough skill dedicated themselves to the project I bet you any amount of money there would be a numerous following of true believers who accepted whatever the conspiracy theorists wanted them to believe. But of course, all that it would not matter one bit unless you could find some real proof. If real evidence implicating Bush in 9/11 surfaced, it would spread across the world in days. Regardless of your cynicism, the Internet would make sure of that. A conspiracy on such a massive scale would require vast numbers of people for planning and execution. The fact that none of these seem to leak information prior to the conspiracy should be a clue. My views are always amenable to change. It just requires evidence. Bush could have perpetrated 9/11. It is vastly improbable in my view, but that just means that the proof needs to be stronger.

The world is a complex place and humans by nature are excellent pattern-recognizers. This usually benefits us and usually gives correct feedback to us, but sometimes we see patterns where there are none. Throughout the history of mammals, a false negative was usually trivial when compared to a false positive. Believing that a couple of rustling leaves is a tiger out to kill you will get your heart pumping, but is trivial compared to the opposite situation. Paranoia is very useful, most of the time. Sometimes, those instincts lead us wrong and make us see design and organization were there are none.

Conspiracies exist. They're usually small, because secrets tend to leak out, especially secrets that absolutely cannot be allowed to leak out. There's no doubt that the media have many common interests with the government and free speech needs to be diligently defended for it not to be lost. There's also no doubt that the proposed conspiracy theories contain actors that would benefit if the conspiracy really took place, or else the theories would be obviously inconsistent to everyone. You'd probably be surprised on how many of the premises of conspiracy promoting information I agree with. It's that step where they're supposed to be delivering the evidence fails them.

[gonzo]

I know you're a smart guy Zero. I'm just having fun with you and throwing some Bill Hicks quotes in their for shits and giggles. For someone who's not sure why their replying, you sure do have a lot to say.

The very best "evidence" on a 9/11 conspiracy is "inconsistencies" which may very well be hard to explain for you or me, but more or less all of them fall apart when examined by professionals. You really do need a very bleak world view to imply that all scientists, engineers and other expert commentators of the world are being controlled by the conspirators.

There have definitely been prominent so called "experts" who have come out in favor of various conspiracies on 911, so not "ALL" that you've mentioned are believers in the "official" story. That's the thing is there are so many "inconsistencies" and suspiciouns on the official story too. (fun with quotation marks )

There's no doubt to me that the makers of "Loose change" selected what to show and how to show it to mislead the viewing audience. The question of whether it was deliberate (if they believe it themselves) is harder to answer, but not really relevant.

Loose Change was definitely deliberately made to persuade the viewer in favor of Dylan Avery's views. Dylan Avery really doesn't know one way or another what the truth is... Just as Alex Jones doesn't really know, but it makes for good entertainment, and they can make a buck off of it. I think they've definitely crossed the line of thinking they know without a doubt what the truth is, just like some folks think they know that the bible is the true word of God. And if you can get enough people to believe it, then hey maybe it is real. Either way, it's good that the film was made cause there are a lot of people out there who need that validation and aren't being represented in the mainstream in a fair way.

Regardless of your cynicism, the Internet would make sure of that. A conspiracy on such a massive scale would require vast numbers of people for planning and execution. The fact that none of these seem to leak information prior to the conspiracy should be a clue.

If I understand your above quote correctly, then I say there were several warnings that 911 was to occur but were intentionally ignored. The possibility that the Bush Crime syndicate knew it was coming and let it happen to wage war on the Middle East, the Taliban, and Civil Liberties and to install their oil pipeline through Afganistan and open the flood gates of the Opium trade to prop up the US economy and fill their pocket books is the most likely scenario. And that sounds like treason to me, something well worth investigating. I don't claim to know what really happened on 911, but judging on the way the current administration came to power in 2000, I am suspicious as hell.

[charismagician]

Presidents have and always will be puppets, that is the way the position is tethered. Coincidences is just another word for something you can't explain using reasonable thought. Reasonable thought tells me someone brought those towers down without the planes. No other possible explanation fits. Who did it is irrelevant for noone will ever really know. What is most important about loose change is not what they left out, it is what they put in. Facts.

[gonzo]

Damn you boys like that there psychobabble talk. There's no doubt the 911 investigation should be re-opened and re-examined by many independent sources. In a way I guess it is with projects like your mom's Loose Change.

[Light]

[The Milky Cowboy]

I don't have a problem with Godzilla....but that fuckin' Megalon has got to be brought to justice!....

Last I heard he was hanging out in Iran....

[sunupu]

I dunno. The whole 9-11 conspiracy theory is a lot harder to swallow than JFK, or even a fake moon landing. First of all, if the white house set up this huge event just to invade Iraq, then why wouldn't he make the terrorists Iraqi? I know, "George Bush was just reaching for a power grab, it didn't matter to him so long as fear is spread." That ignores that the terrorists were mostly Saudi Arabian, and not Afghani like it was said on a news (granted, Afghanistan was the training ground). If there was one group that the White House wouldn't want involved in an attack on the U.S. it would be the Saudis. Bush has connections that run deep in oil that keep him permanently connected to the Saudi Royal family, so making people from their country the hijackers in order to bomb Afghanistan and then invade Iraq is just convoluted. You don't shit where you eat.

I also find the mind-set of most 9-11 conspiracy buffs disturbing. They start out with the attitude that the burden of proof is on the government, which is stupid because it gives government more credit then it has due. Also, a lot of problems have to due with the fact that every conspiracy nut looks at the collapse of the towers without knowledge of physics or structural integrity of architecture. If you want to tell me there's no way towers just fall like those towers did, you at least should have somebody on the sidelines with a degree on architecture to refer back to. Without it, that would be like both of us arguing over the definition of a French word even though neither of us speak French. You're welcome to speculate without knowledge all you want, but looking without knowledge is speculation.

Most of all, I think there's no reason to think the government set up Saudis to attack Afghanistan and then use that as a crutch to invade Iraq. I don't. It's like when people said Bush had a wire during the 2004 debates, even though he sounded like a tard. Anyone with eyes can see that the government can't handle one atrocious lie, let alone the smoking gun. George Bush could have stopped 9-11 if he did more than clear brush at Camp David, that's a fact. I don't know you how look any further than that. The corruption is so blatant, so unapologetic and unwavering, that it casts a light on everything but a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying the idea is beneath George, I'm just saying it would seem more obvious than it is

[Light]

The thing with every one of the conspiraloon 9/11 theories is that they take the same view of the science behind the collapse as evangelists do of the science behind evolution; misunderstanding at best, and plain old lying and misrepresentation at worst. That it was an "inside job" is an article of faith among conspiraloons. That there is no evidence to support this doesn't really matter; they get to distract themselves from their empty lives by squalling "Gooberment did it!"


For all the understanding of the physics behind the collapse, the conspiraloons may as well say that this is what happened:

[Nedak]

Watch the Loose Change documentary before you comment. The first two are obviously support bias opinions but the third seemed less bias and states new facts.

George Bush is a puppet, if it was a cover up he didn't create it. He just covered up the cover up (that's a mouthful).

THE PLOT THICKENS!

quoting on Light's little picture

lmao that's terrible!