# Loose Change 2nd Edition



## Marky Lazer (Sep 11, 2006)

Last night I saw the documentary Loose Change 2nd Edition, and even though I find a lot of it suggestive, it’s hard to believe that all what they’re saying is merely coincidence. What are your thoughts on this documentary?


----------



## ravenus (Sep 11, 2006)

What is this docu about in general?


----------



## Marky Lazer (Sep 11, 2006)

Oh, I'm sorry I thought it was quite famous.

In the documentary there's specualting that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack, but a conspiracy of the American government self.

In places it is far strechted, but some things are simply not right.


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 12, 2006)

Marky Lazer said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm sorry I thought it was quite famous.
> 
> In the documentary there's specualting that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack, but a conspiracy of the American government self.
> 
> In places it is far strechted, but some things are simply not right.


 
And they never landed on the moon......

There was no Holocaust.....

Michael Moore doesn't care about the money....


----------



## Marky Lazer (Sep 12, 2006)

Clearly, you're not reading what I said; I'm not saying I believe the Bush Administration blew up the WTC towers, I'm only saying that a lot of information that was put out about the analysis of the collapse of the towers that is knowingly false. It's just interesting to look it from this (different) point, even though, as I mentioned, it's very suggestive.

Did you even watch the documentary?


----------



## Paige Turner (Sep 12, 2006)

The thing about the whole 9/11 chain of events—and I raised this point in another thread a couple weeks ago—is the site where the fourth plane went down, out in the countryside. In Pennsylvania, I think. Anyway, of all the news coverage of plane crashes I've ever seen, there are _always_ large identifiable pieces of airplane. Smashed engines, big pieces of tail section, seats, hatch covers, that type of thing. Always. In the 9/11 crash, there is only a crater filled with generic debris. It is odd to me that this plane crash would be so dramatically different than every other one I've ever seen.


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Sep 12, 2006)

Im not sure where I stand on all of this yet, but it really bothers me that everytime someone wants to question the Bush administration nowadays, you get called a conspiracy nut. That sort of "branding" strategy, if it continues, will end up keeping people silent who would otherwise speak up against injustice when it does occur. 

umm ever hear of WMD's people? 

A society thats blindly accepts someone else's version of events as the truth is not the kind of society I want to live in. Why would you NOT want questions to be asked? How much money did we spend analyzing Clinton's "stain" (sorry to be indelicate, its what we did). 

umm ever hear of Watergate people??? 
Government officials lie sometimes. It is known.
BTW, do you know the defense department no longer counts Iraqis killed by roadside bombs or mortar attacks as "civilian losses due to the insurgency"?


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 13, 2006)

Let's put this in perspective. Did Bush use the 9/11 attacks as a reason to start an all out war with non-allies in the Middle East? Reasonable. Could be.
Did Bush use the suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to finish the war his father didn't? Also reasonable.  Did a branch of the American government hire 4 suicide pilots to fly planes full of American citizens into American business and government landmarks full of more American citizens to justifiy a war? I think we have gone beyond reasonable at this point. This has suddenly become more like a Dan Brown book. They're entertaining but definitely deserve discussion in a SFF forum. Something this wild would require proof not conjecture. Twenty years from now when the loved ones of the victims are not still covered with open wounds, that might make the premise of an interesting book.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Sep 13, 2006)

Steve, did you watch the documentary?


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 13, 2006)

I personally have not seen this "show" but it is an interesting sounding fiction... Micheal Moore (who I first thought this sounded like) sound give them a call as Moore as a film maker in my opinion is only out to make money with no regard for the truth and these guys are quickly catching up to him if what I read off of their website is true... From what I read off of their website they took a string of events and twisted them for their own purpose (to make money)

I do not believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, I without any doubts believe that it was a terrorist attack caused at least indirectly by Bill Clinton's poor choices and tactic of sticking his head in the sand concerning issues of threats to this nation


----------



## Marky Lazer (Sep 13, 2006)

I still haven't said that I believe the Bush Administration is behinf 9/11. I'm only saying that there are a lot of question that need to be asked still.

One of the main questions, there are three surveilance cameras that taped the plane hitting the Pentagon. They only showed five frames of those tapes, and nothing can be seen on it, really. If a plane hit the Pentagon why not show those tapes? If you have them, why not show them?


----------



## steve12553 (Sep 13, 2006)

I suspect that most major events (the kind that soon become historic) will always leave questions. I am a firm believer that nobody can create a film without a slant. I treat all film as fiction. I will watch it for enjoyment but I will also doubt its accuracy. It doesn't matter to me what direction the slant is in. I'm too old and been around too long to believe that there is anybody trying to show me something that doesn't have an agenda. I won't watch any documentary that has the hint of politics to it. I don't care if it's pro-this or con that. I don't even trust a lot of history. It was written by the winners.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Sep 13, 2006)

Funny that you don't care about documenatries involving politics, but have a very outspoken opinion on something political.


----------



## Adasunshine (Sep 13, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> I don't even trust a lot of history. It was written by the winners.


 
This comment really stands out.

I disagree with you completely, you also have accounts written by the common folk, the people who fought in wars and not just your Generals and your Commanders but your everyday Privates too and not always from the winning side.

For example, my partner has two books, both called "Forgotten Voices of..", one is about the First World War, the other is about WWII. Both books contain accounts of soldiers who fought those Wars and the Wars from their perspectives, both from the winning armies and the losing.

From what I can gather of history, this generally seems to be the case. The only bias I can think of where historical accounts are concerned are that most were probably written by the Middle and Upper classes as they were the only ones who could afford such instruments as quill, ink and parchment. Apart from that, I see little bias in history as it is taught today, you may think that naive but I always try to look at things from both sides of the fence and that is how I was taught at school and at home. Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones.

Possibly contradicting my point, what history is truly trustworthy? Everything is recounted by a human, who invariably embellishes or puts their own spin on it. Some things are 'fact' but not everything. So much is still interpretation/guess work.

Back on topic, the conspiracy theory thing for 9/11 is rather amusing, as to pull it off would be more complex than the actual terrorist activity. The US governmetn was incompetent and that is what led to the attacks. It might have suited some of them but that just highlights how stupid they are.

And no, Marky, I didn't watch the documentary.
xx


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Sep 13, 2006)

carrie221 said:
			
		

> I without any doubts believe that it was a terrorist attack caused at least indirectly by Bill Clinton's poor choices and tactic of sticking his head in the sand concerning issues of threats to this nation


 
I almost always agree with you Carrie, but in this case Ill have to respectfully disagree. 
During the transition, the Clinton defense team warned the Bush administration about the thread of bin Laden and offered to help the incoming team as they seriously believed something was going to happen. They were essentially laughed at and told to make sure the door didnt hit them on the way out. There is a book out about this very issue, Ill try to find out the title and author. 
Now I do lay some of the blame for this on Clinton and his actions during the time, but this event occured because of partisan politics as much as anything else. This left vs right thing needs to stop now before our country suffers any more because of it. 

Moderates Unite!

Edit: Just so you know, me defending Clinton on anything is a rare occurance!


----------



## ravenus (Sep 13, 2006)

Reflecting on some of the comments made already, every attempt to reconstruct/interpret will by default carry some measure of bias and even fiction, to 'fill in the gaps' as they say. But IMO this in no way means to  reduce the importance of such works (assuming they're done in the right spirit of documenting) because otherwise our media (and I don't mean just the press, but all documentary and artistic expression) will only be full of stories that have no relevance or bearing upon our life.


I suppose in a way one is 'safer' assuming that 'everybody has an agenda' and that nobody with a definite social/political opinion should be heard - another way of putting it would be that 'a cynic can only be pleasantly surprised'.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Sep 13, 2006)

I watched the documentary several times. To me it feels like a bunch of conspiracy theorists trying to make money. They offer no scholaraly evidence. For example, most airplanes are made out of a lot of aluminum. Aluminum actually burns rather easily. Airplane fuel burns at what 2000 to 5000 degrees? I think the plane just disintegrated in the heat. Next order, the towers. The towers were built to fall inward. Most buildings nowadays are built that way in case of a bombing or fire. The fact that they fell inwards and not outwards also has a lot to do with the temperature of the fire and the steel beam support and very little to do with the conspiracy.

So Marky, I would implore that before you go listening to every half cocked and half ass researched conspiracy theory, check the sources. Not a single one of those guys has an engineering degree, or is an expert in airplane crashes. I have seen the aftermath of helicopter crashes up here, and I have to tell ya, there was not a whole heckuva lot left.


PS: THe terrorist attack was caused by a bunch of mean religious freaks who wanted to control how we feel and think.


----------



## carrie221 (Sep 13, 2006)

Trey Greyjoy said:
			
		

> I almost always agree with you Carrie, but in this case Ill have to respectfully disagree.
> During the transition, the Clinton defense team warned the Bush administration about the thread of bin Laden and offered to help the incoming team as they seriously believed something was going to happen. They were essentially laughed at and told to make sure the door didnt hit them on the way out. There is a book out about this very issue, Ill try to find out the title and author.
> Now I do lay some of the blame for this on Clinton and his actions during the time, but this event occured because of partisan politics as much as anything else. This left vs right thing needs to stop now before our country suffers any more because of it.
> 
> ...


 
I have heard that Clinton's team offered to help but that they were laughed at due to the fact that the Clinton Administration never did anything about the problems overseas... Bush's people thought that if they wanted to stick their heads in the sand they could figure that out by themselves  

Okay it probably shows that I am not a big fan of Clinton for many reasons... 

History is primarly written by the winners... you can find other parts to what happened but they are not readily available, I mean look at how the american civil war is taught to children in this country they just waive the slavery flag when that had little to do with the real causes of the war. You may disagree with me but that is my point of view after getting a degree in History with a minor in political science. In the US depending on where you live you are taugh different views of history that don't always mesh together.

About the video of the pentagon not being completely shown, umm... its the pentagon I wouldn't want them to show everything. There very well  may have been shots of things that are secretive that the masses do not really need to see and on top of that other foreign groups.


----------



## Paige Turner (Sep 13, 2006)

dustinzgirl said:
			
		

> PS: THe terrorist attack was caused by a bunch of mean religious freaks who wanted to control how we feel and think.


And now, it seems like everyone in America is afraid. So, did the terrorists succeed, then?


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Sep 13, 2006)

carrie221 said:
			
		

> I have heard that Clinton's team offered to help but that they were laughed at due to the fact that the Clinton Administration never did anything about the problems overseas... Bush's people thought that if they wanted to stick their heads in the sand they could figure that out by themselves


 
Im not sure what you mean by "stick their head in the sand".

You have to remember that Clinton's foreign policy was irrevocably changed by Somalia, and the US became leary of deploying troops overseas. 

The Clinton admistration was actually criticized for their over-involvement in areas like the Balkans and Haiti. 

This has turned into a very interesting conversation. I cant believe youre making me defend Clinton! Ugh, Im gonna need a shower.


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Sep 13, 2006)

Paige Turner said:
			
		

> And now, it seems like everyone in America is afraid. So, did the terrorists succeed, then?


 
Yep, the terrorists have changed the way we live our lives, so "Mission: Accomplished" (this time for real, not the Bush definition  ).


----------



## dustinzgirl (Sep 14, 2006)

Paige Turner said:
			
		

> And now, it seems like everyone in America is afraid. So, did the terrorists succeed, then?



Exactly. It was a cry for power and attention, to teach us a lesson. I'm not all that afraid though, except biological warfare scares me, but in that case Ill just head for the hills. Like in Red Dawn. Yes, I have seen way too many movies. 

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Yes it is possible that this was a conspiracy---but what if the REAL conspiracy is to seperate our unity, to cause strife in our government and amongst our people? To discredit our nation, and force our hand?

In those respects, the terrorists have won--whether they be internal or external to our nation.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Sep 14, 2006)

The thing that bothers me...and I have to confess that I haven't seen this film...is not the thought that there might have been a conspiracy.  It's always _possible_ that there was, though not _probable_.

No, the thing that bothers me is that I just have this bone-deep feeling that there are individuals in the Bush administration...and I hasten to add, not necessarily Bush himself...in the past and still present in the leadership, who _could have_, if not participated actively in a conspiracy such as 9/11, then known it was coming and stood by and did nothing because they knew that they could turn such an event to their own purposes.  Who are cold and calculating enough to have kept their mouths shut and let it happen.

I don't like thinking that about anyone in my government.  Believe me, I hate it.  But I haven't been able to convince myself to dismiss the possibility.  I've tried to do so repeatedly, but I haven't been successful.  It all just makes me very sad.  Angry, as well, but mostly just sad.


----------



## Dave (Sep 14, 2006)

dustinzgirl said:
			
		

> Next order, the towers. The towers were built to fall inward. Most buildings nowadays are built that way in case of a bombing or fire. The fact that they fell inwards and not outwards also has a lot to do with the temperature of the fire and the steel beam support and very little to do with the conspiracy.


I watched an interesting 'Horizon' BBC TV show on the structure of the towers and on buildings like them. They included interviews with the architect. Those towers were never ever meant to fall down. That they could fall down was inconceivable, a little like the Titanic sinking. The strength of the structure and the support of all the weight was taken by the inner core. Once the heat of the fire destroyed that they disintegrated.

I haven't seen this documentary. I could also imagine it is possible that a few people in the Bush administration uncovered the plot and thought, if we let this happen this could work to our advantage, but I'd think that highly unlikely. If you were planning this would you have the President reading childrens stories at the time, or in Washington, so that you had to publically move him somewhere safer? 

Conspiracy theories are generally amusing. One was that they had substituted miltitary aircraft for the scheduled flights because you can see on films that the aeroplanes have no windows. Now first of all, if you were a passenger, would you board a plane with no windows? And secondly, I find the idea disrespectful to the people who died.

As for history being written by the victors, that is more true the further back in history you go. You only need to go back a little over a hundred years to find most people could not write. Do you think the Romans, Normans or British were more civilised that those they conquered?

You should always look at primary, original sources of history rather than secondary sources which have someone's spin on them, but often those records are destroyed by the victors. If Hitler had conquered Britain in the Second World War, I'm sure that even today our official history books would still read differently.

Read George Orwell's '1984', that is one of it's messages. And if you don't think it could still happen, investigate what the Taliban do in Afganistan. Remember the Budda statues?

Adasunshine talks about The Great War, but those war poems, letters, paintings and photos, written and taken then were a new phenomena. It was because of those that the general public, wives and mothers, first understood what war was about, and they vowed that it should never happen again. 

Now we have TV crews sequestered within army units, satellite link-ups, and we have the Internet. The fact that we can have this discussion shows how things have changed.

The Terrorists have only won if you let them. What I do believe is that it was wrong for the American and British governments to frighten the public with these threats so that they could begin their campaign in Iraq. There were certainly Terrorists in Afganistan but no evidence of them in Iraq. We were lied to.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Sep 14, 2006)

dustinzgirl said:
			
		

> So Marky, I would implore that before you go listening to every half cocked and half ass researched conspiracy theory, check the sources. Not a single one of those guys has an engineering degree, or is an expert in airplane crashes. I have seen the aftermath of helicopter crashes up here, and I have to tell ya, there was not a whole heckuva lot left.


Half-cocked and half ass-researched conspiracy theory... Strong words there. Again, I'm not saying I believe the Bush Adminiatration _did_ it; I'm only saying the documentary raises some points that are worth thinkering about.

The documentary can be viewed online as well on this page: http://www.loosechange911.com/main.htm


----------



## Adasunshine (Sep 14, 2006)

Dave said:
			
		

> Adasunshine talks about The Great War, but those war poems, letters, paintings and photos, written and taken then were a new phenomena. It was because of those that the general public, wives and mothers, first understood what war was about, and they vowed that it should never happen again.


 
Ah but it did, once that involved the whole world and countless times since involving 2 countries or more.  We claim to learn by our mistakes but it's rather evident that we don't.

xx


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Sep 14, 2006)

dustinzgirl said:
			
		

> The towers were built to fall inward. Most buildings nowadays are built that way in case of a bombing or fire. The fact that they fell inwards and not outwards also has a lot to do with the temperature of the fire and the steel beam support and very little to do with the conspiracy.


The towers, or any building for that matter, are not built to fall at all, let alone inward. The engineering that went into the WTT in particular was a thing of true engineering beauty. I was amazed by how much forethought goes into the building of these structures. Obviously no one intended to calculate in the damage a passenger airline would cause, but to say a building is *designed* to collapse inward is a bit much to swallow. 
If you happen across some blueprints of a building designed to collapse due to fire, please send me the address so I can be sure to stay out of it. 


			
				dustinzgirl said:
			
		

> So Marky, I would implore that before you go listening to every half cocked and half ass researched conspiracy theory, check the sources. Not a single one of those guys has an engineering degree, or is an expert in airplane crashes.
> .


_**sigh**_
Well, Im like Marky and Im not sure what yet to believe, but lets keep our facts straight. There are more and more structural engineers and individuals with advanced degrees coming forward and voicing their concern. Its just as important to check the sources of those individuals rebuking the conpiracy theories. Keep that in mind. What most of these individuals are saying is that there are enough inconsistencies to create doubt, so let's start asking some questions. 
I cannot for the life of me understand why people believe we shouldnt ask questions. At least we are free to debate the issue in the country...well...at least for now.....


----------



## Adasunshine (Sep 14, 2006)

I also heard that they were designed to collapse inward, in fact, I've been informed that most big buildings are, Canary Wharf in London is also - apparently - designed to collapse inwards should anything happen. Still, it's not as if I know any engineers or architects...

Here is a link to some faq's about the Towers' collapse...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

xx


----------



## ravenus (Sep 14, 2006)

I at least know that reactors are deisgned to collapse inwards and thereby shield from the radioactivity inside in the event of an earthquake or similar catastrophe.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Sep 14, 2006)

Adasunshine said:
			
		

> I also heard that they were designed to collapse inward, in fact, I've been informed that most big buildings are, Canary Wharf in London is also - apparently - designed to collapse inwards should anything happen. Still, it's not as if I know any engineers or architects...
> 
> Here is a link to some faq's about the Towers' collapse...
> 
> ...



They are designed that way.


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Sep 14, 2006)

No. Read the reports. In fact, in 1973 NYC adopted codes that serve to prevent progressive collapse of buildings, after the WTC buildings had been constructed. The United Kingdom incorporates such codes for ALL buildings. 
Buildings are designed to remain standing in the event of catastrophe, allowing the occupants the chance to escape.

After reading through these reports, I dont believe there was a controlled demolition and the fires and lateral load excesses brought down the tower. 

**sigh**


----------



## Tsietisin (Sep 18, 2006)

If you are going to watch this, I would suggest watching "screw loose change" on google video. It's 3 hours long so you will need to find some time to sit down to watch it. 

The reason it is so long, is because it plays the loose change film, and gives the counter argument in subtitle form as it plays. Sometimes cutting away to give other evidence proving the other side of the story not offered by the original loose change video.


----------

