9/11 Conspiracy Documentary LOOSE CHANGE

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 11:58am

Has anyone watched it? I just did and it was quite thought-provoking.

Some stuff I don't neseccarily agree with, but one thing that boggles me is that it is indeed true I've never seen an actual plane hit the Pentagon, nor wreckage (aside from the few pieces of allegedly "fake" ruins.

The second is that they couldn't find the black boxes MADE OF STEEL and yet they found the passport MADE OF PAPER from one of the terrorists.

Does anyone know of any sources that confirms or refutes the "evidence" presented in the film?

Updated On: 8/26/06 at 11:58 AM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 12:13pm

I recall there being a thread or two about this a few months back. Apparently, the allegations presented in this film have been debunked.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 12:14pm

this is now the THIRD thread on this......SEARCH!
(by the way, how is Maine?)

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 12:16pm

Maine?

I did do a search and saw a thread title called "Loose Change DEBUNKED" however when I clicked on it it brought me to an entirely different thread...

[WesternSky2]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 1:00pm

There is a website that refutes every point made in the documentary -

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

[ComaBaby01]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 1:17pm

i love this film. i always had doubts about the happenings on Sept. 11, and always thought there was something a little "wrong" about the whole thing, and a few months back when i found this i was like "thank you! so its not un-american to think this way..."

in fact i personally believe the most american thing you can do is question your authority figures. its a right that not many people in the world have.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 1:40pm

Courtesy of Pravda: (all the liberals should have faith in the source)

A 112-page document drawn up by Ramzi Binalshibh, of Al Qaeda, and released by Qatar-based TV station Al Jazeera, admits that the organisation was involved in the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11th and warns of a wave of new terrorist activities.

The document, called “The new reality of the Crusades” is about the justification for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 and celebrates the destruction caused by the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, described by the author as “That glorious Tuesday”.

The document tries to justify the attacks by quoting from Islamic Sunnah, or teachings, such as “For anyone that has followed the events, it is clear that what happened in America was a punishment from God for all the injustice and oppression which America has done to the nations everywhere in the world, especially to the Moslems”.

It claims that the main planners for the attacks were Khaled Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh and the four pilots of the hijacked aircraft, Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Ziad Samir Jarrah and Hani Hanjour, although it attributes the responsibility for the attacks on the USA, stating that the Koran stipulates that it is legal to destroy any country which shows aggressiveness against Moslem nations, claiming also that “if the infidel fixes as objectives women, children and old people, then the Moslems can do the same thing”.

The document declares that “America converted itself into a country at war when it broke the peace and helped the Jews, over 50 years ago, to occupy Palestine…the day it bombed Iraq and began the blockade, when it attacked Sudan and when it bombed and blockaded Afghanistan and attacked the Moslems there”.

It is claimed that the attacks were a pre-emptive strike because the USA was already planning to attack Afghanistan: “America had drawn up a plan to invade Afghanistan and to make an attack there by diverse countries long before the events in America”.

The author of the document goes on to gloat over the fact that the USA lost around one billion USD in revenue after the attacks on September 11th, and the fact that it lost 2,000 financial experts, suffered a Stock Exchange crash, the USD lost value and airline companies went bankrupt.

Finally, the document promises “thousands more attacks” like September 11th to make that event “the beginning of the end for America”.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 1:43pm

But no one has any faith in you, Chanticleer. That must cause a lot of scarring on the inside.

You do realize, that the phrase "Courtesy of ______" indicates that you sought and received permission to reprint something, don't you? Of course you do, you're a teacher!

Updated On: 8/26/06 at 01:43 PM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 1:55pm

Well, hello favored stalker.

Thanks for your usual snotty corrections, and snoopervising of any comments that are made by me. I just wanted to make sure that you were still here with your posse, ready to "regulate." LOL.

Surely, you must be the artist in residence, "know-it-all" at BWW. You can threaten someone's employment, try to convince others that you are a moderator, make proclamtions as if you were the deity, and take over any thread that you want. WOW! Those are really impressive credentials.

And of course, living up to your Namo, you never debate any legitmate points. It's too much fun for you and your ilk to make personal attacks the hallmark of your writing.

BRAVA! You've done it again! You're just another bully in the "namohood."

Forgive me for not bowing to the self-annointed BWW royalty. It's such a shame you can't be right about everything.


Updated On: 8/26/06 at 01:55 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 2:03pm

Do you really believe we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity, Chanticleer?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 2:03pm

Not that you're worth the 13 seconds of time or the 6 seconds of effort, but, you want point by point, here you go:

* You can threaten someone's employment

Nope, never have, never will. You must have me confused with somebody else.

* try to convince others that you are a moderator

Nope, never have, never will. Don't actually even know what you're talking about. Nor is it clear how a person could convince anybody that he or she is a moderator if it doesn't actually say "Moderator" under her or his avatar. Seems sort of obvious, but "obvious" is what you seem to miss a lot.

* make proclamtions as if you were the deity

You're projecting. Never said I was a deity. And it's rich coming from the person who does nothing but make proclamations (using other people's writing) and can't respond to responses to them. It's clear that's because the blogs you're lifting from don't have answers to the responses you get, and you're left dangling, without words of your own.

* and take over any thread that you want.

Well well well. Who was it who recently gave a pedantic lesson on what a message board is and how people have a "right" to say whatever they want on one. Let's see. Insufferable. Plagiarist. Oh, that's right. YOU!

Updated On: 8/26/06 at 02:03 PM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 2:14pm

Just like your patron Saints (I won't name them this time since it always causes a meltdown from some lib), when caught, you deny everything.

Like the stain on the dress, the irrefutable evidence won't go away.
The evidence of stalking, threats, and posings is all permenantly documented. Like you once suggested, I have saved all of my work, and all of your "work" too. No doubt it will come in handy some day soon.

And for Pal: the comments have all received exactly the sort of reaction I knew they would.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 2:20pm

Your fatal flaw is believing and repeating the inflammatory generalizations of the talk radio extremists you so obviously idolize.

You have no idea who I, or anybody else you think belongs to the homogenized group that Rush and Mike Savage and all the straight men you wish you could be like brandish as "liberals," consider to be "patron saints." None. You think you're scoring some sort of death blow when you invoke the name of Hilary Clinton. All that does is reveal how little you know about the people you try to parry with.

And for Pal: the comments have all received exactly the sort of reaction I knew they would.

That may very well be the coppest cop out that ever copped.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 2:28pm

That's very funny. With the exception of Pravda, I have quoted no one today. I know you hate Limbaugh and Coulter, but you could spread the hate around, I don't mind. It's all part of drinking the kool-aid.

And I notice that you did not address the stained dress. That trump card still works so well all these years later. Presented with a stained dress, libs always resort to personal attacks. Too bad all that hot air doesn't dismiss the original evidence and the truth it reveals.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 2:35pm

Namo, get over here and stain my dress.

Updated On: 8/27/06 at 02:35 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/06 at 6:59pm

You know what, Chanticleer? With all that's gone wrong on Bush's watch, with all the lies and the deception, with all the deaths of soldiers in a misdirected war effort ("Afghanistan is going swimmingly" you heroin [and yes I mean that] Ann Coulter announced before storming off Hannity & Colmes on FOX this week when somebody actually said out loud that Iraq was a mistake ESPECIALLY in light of the unfinished job in Afghanistan), that you could actually believe that Clinton getting a blow job somehow weighs more heavily on the scales of injustice, shows me and everyone reading just how delusional you are. It didn't silence me, it just wasn't worth responding to. Seriously, if THAT'S all you've got, then really, what's the point?

And given that you never, EVER actually debate a point, you just post other people's ideas and then whine about the fact that people don't want to engage with you (it's not your points, baby, it's YOU, we're JUST. NOT. That. INTO. YOU.) you would think you would back up the B.S. you assert.

Like, for instance. Before you repeat it again (because with the likes of you, you think repeating a lie three times makes it the truth), please enlighten me about any time ever in which I "pretended to be a monitor."

Go ahead.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 3:06pm

Did he really pull a "but but but Clinton" by alluding to the stained dress?

And, I'm supposed to take him seriously after that?

[aspen]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 3:25pm

Oy vey. Do you people wanna know the truth? Clinton and Bush BOTH SUCK! Sucking is not an attribute that is mutually exclusive to the conservative or liberal parties. They both suck in their very own, special and unique ways.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 3:58pm

To compare Clinton and Bush is to compare The Beatles to Milli Vanilli.

If you think for one second that Shrubya is in the same league as Clinton or Bush Sr or actually any President in history pretty much, you are off your freaking rocker.

[aspen]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 4:04pm

I repeat, "They both suck in their very own, special and unique ways."

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I've rated the two (or is it three now?) presidents with an identical degree of suckiness. They don't even possess the same type of suckiness, much less the same objectively measurable amount of the stuff.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 4:08pm

I think aspen was being noncommital.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 4:14pm

Now that this has degenerated into a discussion of which president "sucks" to a greater or lesser degree, I think it is safe to say this thread has pole-vaulted the proverbial shark.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 4:48pm

Well, I don't think Clinton sucked. I thought he was a great President.

[aspen]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 4:48pm

You don't consider suckiness a legitimate trait by which presidential effectiveness ought to be measured? =(

"I think aspen was being noncommital."

Would you like the knife back, or shall I keep it in my heart? I'm committed only to the belief that thanks to the political leadership and societal trends since Vietnam, our country is irrevocably screwed, and will collapse into a socialistic state within my lifetime, at which point we Texans (excluding the Bush family, all of whom will be exiled), will break off and form our own sovereign nation. New Mexico can come too.

"Anti-war" hypocritical liberals will not allow a wealthy state like Texas to secede, and civil war will ensue. Most of the Bible Belt will probably join up with us, for better or worse, and at that point I'll jet off to Antarctica with Neal Boortz, the Bushmen, and my dog, Moses. We who still possess some personal morals will be capable of governing ourselves amongst the penguins.

And that's why Bush and Clinton both suck. The end.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/27/06 at 4:52pm

Yawn.