• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged]LCFC Errors / Loose Change Final Cut

Isn't it possible that he just chucked in these objects in order to get rid of them as he had no use for the genital scrub?

I don't know anything about American customs checking, but is this an uncommon thing for bags to not make it onto jets?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Are there holes in the facade that I missed where the wings carried on into the building?
Click to expand...

Yes. See the photos on the previous page. The wings did not break through the facade along their whole length for a variety of reasons: the angle of the wings (which made the right wing go past the second floor slab midway through), the resistance of the second floor slab, and the fact that the fuel tanks (which accounted for almost all the mass of the wings) were not uniform in mass along the length of the wings, and that tanks did not go along the whole length of the wings. There is discussion of this in the ASCE report.
 
OMG if the troofers actually manage to get anything taken to court I would pay to go just for the comedy value.

"But your honor, what has the witness done to prove that he is NOT an illuminati shill?"

"So professor, in your 26 years of teaching structural engineering at MIT, have you ever judged the collapse of a building based on how quickly you can say 'clunkity-clunk?'"

"Objection your honor, there were witnesses that saw a missile hit the Pentagon, David Ray Griffin mentioned them in his book. What's that your honor? Uh, no, he does not name them. No, he doesn't say how many there were. Uhh, sorry your honor. Actually he doesn't quote them either. So are you sure I can't admit this into evidence?"
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Do you have any evidence that Wall Street Journal did not confirm the story?
Click to expand...

Now the Times of India says Ahmad is connected to the Sept. 11 attacks:
Click to expand...

Also, how can you speak for the Wall Street Journal or its associated blogs in the first place?
If so I would like to see that.
Click to expand...

My New World Order certificate entitles me to speak for the Wall Street Journal and its associated blogs. I could show it to you but then I'd have to kill you.

Here is a second source regarding wired money to Atta from Pakistan from CNN.
Click to expand...

Except that CNN does not say that Mahmoud Ahmad wired the money. And even if it did, it would not change the fact that Sander Hicks was wrong about the Wall Street Journal confirming it.

Sen. Joe Biden confirmed the wire transfer in his interview. When confonted, Biden stated, ""We asked him the question - what was he doing with the head of the Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad," said Rudkowski.

"He (Biden)told me - he(Biden) admitted that he met with him - (Biden) met with the head of the Pakistani ISI - he said I told them not to do it, I (Biden)told them not to wire the money - I told them to stop supporting the Taliban..."

You can view the interview at We Are Change.

When you have confirmation like that, do you still deny the story?
Click to expand...

The question is not really about whether the head of the ISI indeed wired money to Atta. The question is claiming that the Wall Street Journal confirmed it. That is a claim that Sander Hicks makes that is wrong. Period. End of story. Even if the $100,000 claim was proven correct tomorrow, that would not change the fact that Sander was wrong and Dylan, by including that in his mockumentary, misled his viewers into believing that the story was stronger than it actually is.
 
JamesB said:
OMG if the troofers actually manage to get anything taken to court I would pay to go just for the comedy value.

"But your honor, what has the witness done to prove that he is NOT an illuminati shill?"

"So professor, in your 26 years of teaching structural engineering at MIT, have you ever judged the collapse of a building based on how quickly you can say 'clunkity-clunk?'"

"Objection your honor, there were witnesses that saw a missile hit the Pentagon, David Ray Griffin mentioned them in his book. What's that your honor? Uh, no, he does not name them. No, he doesn't say how many there were. Uhh, sorry your honor. Actually he doesn't quote them either. So are you sure I can't admit this into evidence?"
Click to expand...

But your Honour, it's admitted that it's an Inside Job.
That was in, like, the Associated Press. The headline:
"ADMISSION:IT'S AN INSIDE JOB says Government."
 
i've started to transcribe averys narration of LCFC with a rough timeline. hopefully people here may find it useful to check out the various points made in this and similar threads. i've been a bit busy with my non-internet life but still managed to complete transcription of the first 25 minutes or so covering chapter 1. having fingers like cumberland sausages my word speed is a tad slow but i hope to complete the project within a day or so. please point out errors/ommisions i could do with all the help i can get.....anyway here's the first installment.

00:00
Prologue.....

00:35
On September eleventh two thousand six, thousands from all over the world gathered in New York City, New York. They wore black shirts reading Investigate Nine Eleven and held banners that read Ask Questions Demand Answers. This day marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September eleventh two thousand one.

01:00
Although the 9/11 Commission Report had been published two years prior, many Americans and citizens worldwide remain convinced that the truth was being withheld from the public. Why? Why was a growing percentage of the world population becoming increasingly sceptical of the events of September eleventh? Was it a natural inclination towards believing the worst about the United States Government? Or was it a legitimate concern that only grew more powerful with time?

01:40
The Nine Eleven Truth Movement includes academics, engineers, physicists, firefighters, intelligence officials and some of the very people whose lives had been shattered since September eleventh. Were they all delirious? Or were they a concerned group of individuals taking the necessary steps to prevent the United States from slipping into its darkest era yet? Was September eleventh a surprise attack on America by nineteen Islamic terrorists? Or something else entirely?

02:40
Five Years Earlier.....

Titles

Act 1 Chapter 1 Hijackers.

06:20
On September thirteenth, the United States Government declares that it has overwhelming evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the attacks. The Taliban offers to hand over Osama Bin Laden if the United States can provide evidence.

06:55
September twenty third two thousand one……….by the next day the White House was already back-pedaling. This information has yet to be provided to the public.

07:50
Instead of taking credit, Bin Laden denies involvement in the attacks, three times. December thirteenth, the Department of Defense releases a video tape allegedly discovered in a house in Jalalabad Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden describes the attacks along with…..(inaudible)…..American mainstream media and even President Bush would portray this video tape as absolute proof of his guilt. International establishments question the authenticity of the tape.

08:20
December twenty sixth two thousand one, a Taliban official claims that he has attended the funeral of Osama Bin Laden. The next day, a video, believed to be recorded on November nineteenth, is broadcast in which Bin Laden praises the attack but takes no responsibility. The next Bin Laden video would not appear until October twenty ninth two thousand four, days before the Presidential election. The video was described as the clearest claim of responsibility for Nine Eleven.

08:55
And when questioned why Bin Laden's "most wanted" poster does not indict him for nine eleven the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, Rex Tomb, replied (Ed Haas: Nine Eleven is not mentioned on Bin Laden's most wanted poster is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to Nine Eleven. Clearly I couldn't really believe what I'd just heard. So I repeated it and he said yes that is correct, the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to Nine Eleven.)

09:30
What evidence do they have?
* Two bags, belonging to Mohamed Atta (checked in at Portland Airport but failed to make Flight Eleven at Boston) containing, a Seven Five Seven video tour and a flight manual, an Arab-English dictionary, a hand-held flight computer, a Koran and his will. (Why would Atta take his will onto a plane that would be destroyed in a fiery inferno?)
* Marwan al-Shehhi’s rental car, discovered at Logan Airport, containing an Arabic flight manual, an airport restricted area pass, and documents from Huffman Aviation.
* Nawaf al-Hazmi’s rental car, discovered at Dulles Airport containing Mohamed Atta’s instructions, a check for a flight school in Phoenix, four drawings of a Seven Five Seven cockpit, a knife and maps of Washington and New York.
* Satam al-Suqamis passport (discovered below the twin-towers, how does a passport fly out of a man’s pocket, through a four hundred mile-per-hour plane crash, survive nine thousand gallons of jet-fuel and land intact on a sidewalk a thousand feet below?)
* Majed Moqed and Nawaf al-Hazmi’s ID cards discovered in the wreckage at the Pentagon.
* An ID, Saeed al-Ghamdi’s passport, Ahmed al-Nami’s driver’s license, passport photos, and a business card found in Shanksville.

The list goes on. A former high level intelligence official commented to New-Yorker magazine, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately for the FBI to chase”



11:40
Small amounts? Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmed, the director of the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence Agency, the ISI, was reported to have wired a hundred thousand dollars, to Mohamed Atta in August two thousand one. This transfer was facilitated by Saeed Sheikh the man who allegedly kidnapped and murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl who was investigating the ties between the ISI and Islamic Militants. The ISI has had a long-standing relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency dating back to the nineteen eighties with the establishment of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which would evolve into Al-Qaeda.

13:25
In the White-House transcript of this exchange, which is delivered to the press, the information about the ISI is censored. Bob Graham and Porter Goss will later co-head a joint inquiry which publicly claims that the Bush administration received absolutely no intelligence that could have prevented the attacks.

13:45
The meeting begins at eight a m, over breakfast, at the Capitol Building and lasts through Flight One Seventy Five’s impact with the South Tower. During his visit, which began on September fourth, Ahmed would also meet with the present CIA director, George Tenet. A month later, after reports of the transfer, between himself and Atta, Mahmood Ahmed retires from the ISI. The 9/11 Commission report, will later conclude that they saw no evidence, that any foreign government or foreign government official supplied any funding. The commission decided to not only omit the information but to deny it entirely.

15:25
Why was such a vested interest in covering up the transaction between the ISI and Mohamed Atta?

16:00
As if their funding was not suspicious enough, a number of hijackers reportedly trained at US military bases. Ahmed al-Nami Ahmed al-Ghamdi and Saeed al-Ghamdi listed their address on both drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. Mohamed Atta reportedly graduated from the US International Office School at the Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. In response to a Freedom of Information Act, Captain Jason Taylor confirmed that a Mohamed Atta trained there, between nineteen-ninety-eight and nineteen-ninety-nine but did not verify if it was the same person. Abdulaziz al-Omari attended Brookes Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. Saeed al-Ghamdi and others attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California as confirmed by Lieutenant-Colonel Steve Butler, Vice-Chancellor of Student Affairs. American media ceases investigation when the Air Force says “we are probably not talking about the same people”. Two of the hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mindhar, rented an apartment from and lived with an FBI informant. Curiously, a number of them were reported to still be alive after the attack.
Finally we were led to believe, that the alleged hijackers were fundamentalist Muslims spending their final days preparing for Paradise. Yet, in the week before the attacks, a number of them would drink, visit strip clubs, and solicit prostitutes. Majed Moqed is spotted several times at a porn shop. Hamza al-Ghamdi ordered a porno in his hotel on September tenth. The Mayor of Patterson, New Jersey states that they are spotted more at go-go clubs than at mosques.

18:30
Regardless of their actions, some of the hijackers’ presence was known as early as two thousand.
The company responsible for the chart O’Ryan Scientific Systems would claim that only two charts were produced and that Atta was not present on either one.
The official response to Able Danger began in September two thousand five with a letter from 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon to Senator Arlen Specter. Gordon concludes by saying that since Condoleezza Rice, President Bush and the White House deny that Able Danger identified the hijackers, it never happened. A six month investigation by the Senate House Committee concluded in December two thousand six that Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other Nine Eleven hijacker. Can we be certain that the hijackers were radical Muslims on a suicide mission or is there a possibility that they were trained, funded and protected in our own country?

24: 40

ACT 1
Chapter II
Wargames

TO FOLLOW
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LCFC quotes a New Yorker article:

A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how Dylan wants this quote to support his case. My best guess would be that he's implying that the government was the one leaving the trail. The context is an article in the New Yorker from the 8th October 2001, looking at the view different investigative groups in the government had of the crime and those who comitted it (as well as the state of the CIA - the article is entitled 'What Went Wrong?').

From the article, some believed the terrorists deliberatly left a trail of evidence for the FBI, and this seems to be to do with how sophisticated the hijackers were in planning. And that's it as far as I can see for the quote. And leaving a trail would kind of make sense - if you're trying to deal a blow against your enemy, you want them to know who dealt that blow.

But this isn't evidence against the 9/11 comission report or anything else, let alone evidence for a conspiracy. It looks like Dylan was just looking for quotes that might sound suggestive, in dim light, after a few drinks.

You can find the original article on conspiracy sites (I'm guessing this is where Dylan Avery found it) or the New Yorker, although I'm not sure that the full text is available from the New Yorker online (might be on Nexis).
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I know I have no real right to ask this, but do you think we could spawn this thread out into the style I have done with the 'Act 1: Hijackers' thread? It just makes everything a lot more tidy and easy to source things from. And information will not get lost in the maze.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's going to be so very much that it will get lost here. Why not wait a couple of days until the film's been plucked down to the bones and then create a meta-thread that organizes stuff better?
 
What do you mean by a meta-thread?

Hmmm.. I'm annoyed my thread got merged into this. It was all neat and tidy before.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible that the baggage never made the plane because he didn't want it to make the plane?
 
Loose Change said:
The engines were never fully recovered
Click to expand...


Says who?

These claims are made all the time, but I never seen any report or statement that says, "We searched for the engines but we could not find them in the debris". The troofer claim is rather an argument from ignorance, if there are no photos of something on the internet or mentioned by someone, it doesn't exist. Did Dylan ask the NTSB if there were missing engines or anything like that in the debris? Didn't think so.

I'll give him one thing though -- that was the most accurate and detailed animation of the Pentagon attack I've ever seen.
 
Caper said:
Is it possible that the baggage never made the plane because he didn't want it to make the plane?
Click to expand...

I've only see one article attempt to explain this, and it said:

When Atta arrived at Logan's Terminal B from Portland, little did he know that US Airways was slow in transferring his bags from the commuter jet to the American baggage dock.

They arrived before takeoff – but after American's just-imposed cut-off time for late baggage. The new rule refused any bags delivered within 10 minutes of the flight's scheduled take-off. Atta's came within several minutes.

"His bags, which were transferred rampside, were transferred late by US Airways Express," the American employee said.

As soon as the bags were dropped off at American's loading dock, a ground-crew worker checked the tag, put them on a cart and drove them out to the 767 getting ready to taxi to the runway.

But he got a "thumbs down" by the crew that loads the bags, the employee said.

"It was about three minutes before departure," he said. "They had it locked up, and it was ready to go."

The bags were brought back and tagged for rerouting to the 11 a.m. flight to LAX, he says.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28904
Click to expand...

It's an unnamed source, and still doesn't explain why the bags were slow to be transferred, though.
 
This stupid movie states that the Atta/ISI money transfer was conducted in August 2001. Why would the hijackers still need money that close to the actual attack date? Wasn't most of the money needed for the flying lessons?

Speaking of the hijackers what's with all this crap about them not being fundamentalist Muslims because they drank and watched porn? Forget about booze and porn, they were not good Muslims because they murdered people!

As for the prologue, what's with this crap about a "growing percentage of the world's population becoming increasly skeptical of the events of 9/11"? If that were the case then why not show footage of the 2007 9/11 anniversary instead of 2006?

As for the WTC buildings falling "in their own footprint", what's with that crap? Doesn't Dyland know that several other buildings were destroyed that day and dozens of others were damaged due to falling debris?

Will continue rant later.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
What do you mean by a meta-thread?

Hmmm.. I'm annoyed my thread got merged into this. It was all neat and tidy before.
Click to expand...

Meta-post, my mistake. In other words, eventually everything's gotta be organized, but even your hijackers thread was not in order, so it would require another level of organization. We could break the meta-post up as well by chapter, with one person organizing each segment.
 
"Verifies that A Mohammed Atta trained there, but wouldn't clarify if it they were the same person."

Another complete assumption with no evidence, along with the whole passport thing.
 
Gravy: You called it. The movie completely conflates Arab and Afghan Mujahideen.

Atta's Will: According to The Looming Tower, the will was something Atta got from the Al Quds mosque in Hamburg. He did this on April 11, 1996, the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath.

In other words, Atta was the Islamic equivalent of a Chick Tract reader. And having it in a suitcase that could have been destroyed tells me it was a more personal memento rather than a seriously-meant will at that point.

Favorite Roll-Your-Eyes Moment Thus Far: Oh, the heinous wickedness of Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, "Bush Cabinet-level appointee". This was revealed in our introduction to NIST. Gutierrez and Bush have actually shaken hands. So NIST is hopelessly biased, of course.
 
Dylan's argument so far is extremely weak, and is still using the "highjakers are still alive" argument though that was debunked ten times over after he used it in previous editions. And by the end of the first portion of the movie, he ends by just asking more questions.

Then he talks about the interceptions and how it takes 10 minutes. This is a DRG statement that has also been debunked. Wargames? Yawn...debunked already. I'm about 30 minutes in and i've seen hardly anything new and original in this movie.
 
Argggh, the 70% of the GZ workers have developed respiratory problems claim. Debunked by those notorious Bush supporters at the New York Times. If it were really seven in ten there'd be no need for a Mount Sinai study.
 
Ahhhhh....now they show the Norman Mineta testimony....Why don't you show the whole quote from the beginning starting with the question Dylan? Would it be because it would completely contradict you?
 
MetalliSociety said:
Is it just me or does Avery have the most annoying and boring voice of any narrator ever?
Click to expand...

It's not just you.


Does anyone know if there is any evidence that Rex Tomb of the FBI said they had no hard evidence against Osama Bin Laden? I've been looking for an interview where he said it, to look at what he actually said and the context he said it in, and all I can find is the claim that he said it repeated all over conspiracy sites.

The best I've found so far is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109

Neither support that quote.
 
Dylan's usual hyperbole gets him in trouble. He claims that items from Flight 93 survived in "pristine" condition, including a Saudi driver's license.



Don't buy anything as "mint" from Dylan!
 
Now Hanjour, who already had his commercial liscense. Most instructors if I remember correctly said he couldn't land a plane, but obviously that wouldn't be a problem on 9/11.

43 minutes in, still nothing "earth shattering" as I believe Bermas said it would be.
 
Matilda said:
It's not just you.


Does anyone know if there is any evidence that Rex Tomb of the FBI said they had no hard evidence against Osama Bin Laden? I've been looking for an interview where he said it, to look at what he actually said and the context he said it in, and all I can find is the claim that he said it repeated all over conspiracy sites.

The best I've found so far is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109

Neither support that quote.
Click to expand...

Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report is the original source.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Do you have any evidence that Wall Street Journal did not confirm the story?
Also, how can you speak for the Wall Street Journal or its associated blogs in the first place?
If so I would like to see that.

Here is a second source regarding wired money to Atta from Pakistan from CNN.

Sen. Joe Biden confirmed the wire transfer in his interview. When confonted, Biden stated, ""We asked him the question - what was he doing with the head of the Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad," said Rudkowski.

Edit: much pointed out earlier today. But I'd still like to know how Joe Biden was in charge of all this.

"He (Biden)told me - he(Biden) admitted that he met with him - (Biden) met with the head of the Pakistani ISI - he said I told them not to do it, I (Biden)told them not to wire the money - I told them to stop supporting the Taliban..."
You can view the interview at We Are Change.

When you have confirmation like that, do you still deny the story?
Click to expand...

First, he asks: "can you prove a negative for me?" Pretty lazy (as well as logically impossible.)

Second, Rudkowski... That Rudkowski?? Like that's a credible source.

Third, aha! Biden is the big enchilada behind the whole thing. Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:
MetalliSociety said:
Now Hanjour, who already had his commercial liscense. Most instructors if I remember correctly said he couldn't land a plane, but obviously that wouldn't be a problem on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Hanjour's main problem was that he didn't speak English adequately. Remember, Marcel Bernard rated him an average to below average pilot. Bernard's instructors took three test flights with Hanjour before declining to rent him a plane, which is hardly indicative of a complete incompetent. In addition Hanjour did end up renting a plane at another airfield (in New Jersey, IIRC) and ended up making a flight to Maryland and back.
 
The usual BS about the last three minutes of the Cockpit Voice Recorder missing; of course this comes from the claim that the plane crashed at 10:06, not 10:03 as is generally accepted, and as even Dylan says in the opening of this segment. Amazing how he forgot that!
 
The whole start of the WTC section is just like 2nd edition. Yawn. Where did all this money he claimed to use for the movie go if hes just rehashing 2nd edition clips?
 
Dylan makes the usual claim that all the columns had to collapse "simultaneously". One column could give way, but buildings are designed to transfer that load to other columns. It is only when the remaining columns cannot support the weight that the building collapses.
 
Something struck me as unusual during the Kevin Ryan interview. They show them making the model for the floors and all of that, but there is one problem. They had the fireproofing still in tact, although all throughout the floors of the impact zone the fireproofing was knocked off.

Just something i spotted.
 
Brainster said:
Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report is the original source.
Click to expand...

Thank you :). I feel reluctant to take his word that the quote is accurate and in context. He doesn't have evidence to back up his claim, as it was a conversation over the phone. Looking at the Muckraker site, Haas appears to be a CTist, so perhaps he heard what he wanted to hear.

Here is his request to have the 9/11 Commission Report reclassified as fiction by the library of congress:
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id228.html
 
Also, like Bofors, Dylan and Co. never read the NIST report, and they have openly admited that they "dont have the time" to read over the report. So their critique is useless, like bofors.

Now, he's talking about the usual free fall speed and controlled demolition.

I also like how they note that Prof. Jones "retired" from BYU. Last I checked, he quit his post while his paper was being peer reviewed by his department and took his paper with him.
 
And now they're doing the usual "assuming molten metal automatically means molten steel" rubbish. Dylan is really ripping the truthers off with this one. Once again, it's still basically 2nd edition with improved sound and CG.

Way to screw twoofers out of their money Avery.
 
Finished. Odd that there's not a single mention of thermite/thermate or iron microspheres. And the film seems more aimed at the existing Troofer community than at converting new folks, but at the same time it's much less definitive in its conclusions, which strikes me as likely to be unsatisfactory to the kooks.

Dylan provides very little context for some of the issues. The radio issue gets mentioned, but he does not explain what it's all about. Granted, it's boring, but at least there's some substance to that claim compared to the rest of the film.
 
ALSO...(lol...tell me if im getting annoying) he compares the collapse with a normal CD. Note theres a whole bunch of loud bangs and bright flashes. None of which are present in collapses of either towers or WTC 7(unless you watch 9/11 Mysteries which implanted SFX, or some other truther fake videos).

He then talks about the smoke cloud coming from the base of the towers. At this point Twoofer hero Willie Rod. is still in the basement, which effectively would have killed him.

I believe RKOwens debunked this claim.

Then he uses the interviews of people from that day, which has been talked about constantly by debunkers and is nothing new for this movie.

Come on Dylan. Im still holding out that you'll talk about something original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom