Loose Change

[delphi_ote]

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change

[Hellbound]

*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

I haven't watched it. Is it that Alex Jones video? I had a guy trying to convince me to watch some Alex Jones video, but at the time I flat out refused because of some of the blatantly specious stuff he was quoting from it.

I guess I'll have to watch it now that it's all over Google video so I can tear it apart next time someone tells me I just have to see this thing.

[MWare]

I know I should watch this, if only so I can respond if somebody was to bring it up in conversation, but I do have a bit of a temper and this is an event I'm still trying to deal with. I fear if I watch it I will have a very unhealthy reaction.

[Serenity]

I couldn't continue watching it after the 2nd missile theory was hatched. A missile launched milliseconds before impact strikes me as absurdly unnecessary considering the fully fueled monstrosity that's right behind it. I'm expecting my brother to e-mail this one any day now.

[delphi_ote]

So the guys that made this were apparently students doing a film project.
Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas. Phil Jayhan apparently has some connection with them, too.

This is madness of epic proportions.

Quote:

Why would anybody want to investigate the three, wonderful young men (Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, and Jason Bermas) who created Loose Change?

The reason is that the criminal network that staged the 9/11 attack may be promoting Loose Change in order to push aside more important people and videos.

From the criminal's point of view, there is a big advantage to promoting Loose Change rather than somebody like myself. The main advantage would be to create the illusion that they are exposing corruption.

[delphi_ote]

One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false.

Quote:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

[WanderinWTF]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false.

Delphi_ote What are your beliefs of the 9/11 attack? Could you tell me anything that happend with the election in Florida? I didn't watch the whole video, however i do wanna point something out New York to me is the weakest defending city in the U.S. that has a lot of $$$!!!

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by WanderinWTF

Delphi_ote What are your beliefs of the 9/11 attack?

I believe in Bush the President, Leader of Texas and America, and in Dick Cheney, His evil partner conceived by the 9/11 tragedy, born of the spinmeister Rove, suffered under Osama Bin Laden was elected, stupid, and incompitent. The towers mysteriously fell; the third day He rose again to make a speech He ascended into The White House and sits at the right hand of Donald Rumsfeld, the Father Almighty From thence He will judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 9/11 missile attacks The planes not found The complicity of the CIA The free fall of the towers The destruction with explosives And the conspiracy everlasting Amen.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

I believe in Bush the President, Leader of Texas and America, and in Dick Cheney, His evil partner conceived by the 9/11 tragedy, born of the spinmeister Rove, suffered under Osama Bin Laden was elected, stupid, and incompitent. The towers mysteriously fell; the third day He rose again to make a speech He ascended into The White House and sits at the right hand of Donald Rumsfeld, the Father Almighty From thence He will judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 9/11 missile attacks The planes not found The complicity of the CIA The free fall of the towers The destruction with explosives And the conspiracy everlasting Amen.

They should change the name from "Loose Change" to "Loose Marbles!"

[WanderinWTF]

Originally Posted by Serenity

They should change the name from "Loose Change" to "Loose Marbles!"

Pls inform me as to who THEY are pls lol.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by WanderinWTF

Pls inform me as to who THEY are pls lol.

Why the evil-doer’s… purveyors of all things conspiratorial. Their names are cloaked in secrecy, but can be revealed for a small fee. May I direct you to the nearest money drop?

[WanderinWTF]

OMG you believe in the Anit-Christ. He's not the person in charge of Texas or the U.S. In fact he lost the votes in Texas, they have planted that in peoples brains so when they think about it winning was possible cause Texas is so big. To win Fl. which was trickery and planned, not by genius but by power, money and destruction. He only takes orders like a puppet, a robot. when I see him on tv his eyes look so cold.

[delphi_ote]

I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?

[delphi_ote]

For anyone else who might run across this video, here's a link to a good reference on how the towers fell:
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category

ETA: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...81809EC588EF21

[Manny]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

I had a conversation with one of my room mates about this movie last night. I think I disabused him of believing in the movie, but he still seems stuck on the free fall idea. Does anyone have one really good link debunking that myth? Something a realtor would understand?

Any picture or video of either of the collapsing building should suffice -- much of the outer structure was split off from the building during the collapse and did indeed fall at free-fall speeds. A picture clearly shows such pieces below the place where they fell off and a video shows them falling more quickly than the building itself.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by manny

Any picture or video of either of the collapsing building should suffice -- much of the outer structure was split off from the building during the collapse and did indeed fall at free-fall speeds. A picture clearly shows such pieces below the place where they fell off and a video shows them falling more quickly than the building itself.

Good point. Thanks, manny.

Just a note, the point that seemed to convince my roomie the most was the "think of how many people would have to be involved to cover this up" argument. Coupled with "who would do this" and "why would anyone do this" I could tell he started to be a bit more critical of the film.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

*sigh*

Did anything like this happen with Pearl Harbor? I know there were a few theories, but mostly it seems to be only one or two little factoids left now. I dunno, though. I'm not real good with history. I wonder if there's a parallel between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in the development of conspiracy theories.

If so, then the relatively uncommon nature of Pearl Harbor CTs today could be taken as a good sign that this too will fade

This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.

But this is an order of magnitude more absurd. We all watched the (rule 8)ing building collapse on our TVs. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people's lives were directly impacted by the events. Thousands of lives were ended and two wars were fought as a result of this event. It happened right in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world, not far out in orbit. Faking this would have taken thousands of people and billions of dollars. Nobody would have the motivation to do this, either. I could see faking the moon landing maybe to psych out the USSR or something. The motivation behind this 9/11 conspiracy is so murky and absurd. To collect insurance money? To make returns on investments? To justify military action?

It's madness. That this video is starting to catch on around college campuses really makes me worry about the future of our country.

[Manny]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Just a note, the point that seemed to convince my roomie the most was the "think of how many people would have to be involved to cover this up" argument.

I don't get how anyone gets past that argument. With the moon landing, a true CTer can at least say, "yeah, but all those people worked for the government or its contractors-- they were in on it, too!" Here, we're talking about hundreds or thousands of people who didn't work for the government (or if they did, not for the conspirators -- the worked for the city government, for example). And many of them died. How could one sneak explosive charges, say, past the building staff who subsequently died because they stayed in the buildings after the attacks to help people escape?

[Orb]

Not sure who said this first but it always rings true: If the president can't keep getting a BJ secret, how do you expect to cover up something as large as the twin tower conspiracy?

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by manny

I don't get how anyone gets past that argument.

They get past it because they're not thinking critically. Watch the documentary sometime. It just bombards you with anecdotes and sinister implications. They never put the pieces together enough that you could call what they're presenting a "theory." They just drop enough hints to prey on what people want to believe. Yes, I think they want to believe it. I don't understand why, but it seems like these people want to live in a bad Tom Clancy novel adaptation directed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

My room mate is a smart guy. The other guy who recommended the video to me is a Computer Science PhD student. They just weren't being critical thinkers.

[brodski]

How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by brodski

How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.

Yeah, Lewis Black said it best:

"At least have the common sense to send two fifteen year olds to Kinko's and tell them 'Look I need a picture of a camel with a nuke on its back.'"

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by brodski

How come the Bush administration was so good at carrying out and covering up the reall 9/11 operation, but so incompetent with so many other things?
I mean, they can't even "find" any WMD in Iraq.

They're faking incompetence to make us believe that they couldn't possibly have pulled off the 9/11 hoax, and meanwhile they're profiting royally off Iraq. The longer they can stretch this thing out, the more they profit. Or at least that was the gist of a particularly loony rationale that one guy presented to me.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

They're faking incompetence to make us believe that they couldn't possibly have pulled off the 9/11 hoax, and meanwhile they're profiting royally off Iraq. The longer they can stretch this thing out, the more they profit. Or at least that was the gist of a particularly loony rationale that one guy presented to me.

Did you ask him to stop and actualy listen to what he was saying himself?
Why would a government fake incompetence, when it comes so naturaly to all of them anyway.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Yes, I think they want to believe it. I don't understand why, but it seems like these people want to live in a bad Tom Clancy novel adaptation directed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think.

Also, I think it actually provides security of a sort. In the U.S., we've always had the "it can't happen here" attitude. Even after Oklahoma City, we didn't expect any foreign terrorists to be able to attack us here. 9/11 showed conclusively that this is false. Terrorists got into the country, lived here for some time, planned their attacks, trained fo their attacks, and carried them out without us being able to stop it.

Positing conspiracy also elemenates some of this type of fear. "Terrorists can't just get in without people knowing, the government allowed them in. They still have control." In a backwards sort of way, it's a way to cling to a sense that we aren't out of control at all.

Least, that's my ideas. Take 'em for what they're worth (unless you have small pipes on your septic system).

[Luke T.]

I don't understand the "free fall" problem.

But I do have some ideas about the "secondary explosions".

The film makes a big deal out of free fall, saying it would take 10 seconds for something to free fall that distance.

Later, they start to discuss the secondary explosions in the WTC. And they play a tape recorded on the 36th floor where you hear two explosions, 9 seconds apart.

They then talk about marble panels blown off the lobby by a raging fireball which travelled down the elevator shaft.

The film then says there was no way the fireball was able to burn since the elevator shaft was airtight and therefore had no air for the fire.

But what about the air that was already in the shaft?

As for the janitor, when he heard the first explosion, he thought it came from the basement. He said the second explosion came from directly overhead.

I would say that when he heard the first explosion, he was not in any state of awareness of something unusual going on and made a guess where the sound originated. Trying to guess at what could make such a noise, he says he thought it was a generator exploding. Since the generators were in the basement that is where he thought the sound came from.

By the time of the second explosion, he was more aware and was able to make a better estimate of the direction of the source.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by brodski

Did you ask him to stop and actualy listen to what he was saying himself?
Why would a government fake incompetence, when it comes so naturaly to all of them anyway.

Unfortunately, at the time I was so dumbfounded by the idea that I didn't have a response. I just sort of sputtered. I think he thought he'd made a really good point and had won the debate. He was a casual acquaintance, and I never had the opportunity to bring it up with him again. Not that it would have mattered. I mean if you're willing to take the conspiracy theory to that level, reason alone is not going to bring you back.

[sat556]

I've not really paid much attention to the CT on this, but I have just watched the video. The only bit that confused me was the Pentagon bit. From what they showed there really didn't seem to have been a plane there. The hole being tiny, no ground marks for entry etc. I could see however, that they were picking the facts that suited. Is there an explanation for this that is so simple I'm just being idiotic by missing it?
I watched the clip of the plane entering the second tower three times over due to the commentary saying that it just clips the building or something like that. It didn't look like that to me, looked like one hefty hit! These people must think that we aren't paying too much attention.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by sat556

I've not really paid much attention to the CT on this, but I have just watched the video. The only bit that confused me was the Pentagon bit. From what they showed there really didn't seem to have been a plane there. The hole being tiny, no ground marks for entry etc. I could see however, that they were picking the facts that suited. Is there an explanation for this that is so simple I'm just being idiotic by missing it?
I watched the clip of the plane entering the second tower three times over due to the commentary saying that it just clips the building or something like that. It didn't look like that to me, looked like one hefty hit! These people must think that we aren't paying too much attention.

And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack.

[Luke T.]

According to USA Today, the plane that hit the Pentagon left a hole 30 yards wide.

[Luke T.]

More photos of the Pentagon:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109114a_hr.jpg

There was a 16 foot hole was a hole created in an interior wall. A punch-out into the courtyard between the B and C rings.

[Luke T.]

The film also claims there was no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon, but if you look at the photo I posted above, you can see what looks like a jet engine in the red box. And it ain't the small engine part shown in the film.

[Luke T.]

In the film, the narrator says there was only a single hole, 16 feet wide, made by the plane's impact. They are very careful about what photos they show and seem to deliberately avoid showing the hole to the right of what photos they do show that looks like a hole created by an engine. And then they go on to say that the engines should have made holes!

ETA: Look at the hole below and to the left of the American flag in the photo I posted above. That is the hole they avoid showing in the film.

[delphi_ote]

Great links, Luke! Thanks a lot. The more I learn about this, the more I'll be able to nip this BS in the bud next time I encounter it. I'm sure I'm likely to encounter it again in my line of work...

By the way, if you want a detailed analysis of the Pentagon hit, check the Snopes article on it.

Quote:

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: False.

Doesn't get any clearer than that.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Control, oddly enough.

Think about, lightning was much "scarier" before we understood what caused it. It still has the exact same properties, but because we know the causes, it loses some of its ability to cause fear.

Same with other pehenomena. The "conspiracy" angle removes the accidental/random/unpredictable elements from the event (the buildings didn't fall unforeseen, they were intended to fall!). So that's one aspect, I think.

Also, I think it actually provides security of a sort. In the U.S., we've always had the "it can't happen here" attitude. Even after Oklahoma City, we didn't expect any foreign terrorists to be able to attack us here. 9/11 showed conclusively that this is false. Terrorists got into the country, lived here for some time, planned their attacks, trained fo their attacks, and carried them out without us being able to stop it.

Positing conspiracy also elemenates some of this type of fear. "Terrorists can't just get in without people knowing, the government allowed them in. They still have control." In a backwards sort of way, it's a way to cling to a sense that we aren't out of control at all.

Least, that's my ideas. Take 'em for what they're worth (unless you have small pipes on your septic system).

Well put, Hutch. I think that's definitely part of the appeal, but I think there are two other factors: excitement and simplicity.

Excitement: We've heard the same story over and over about the towers. There's not enough drama involved. Some of the characters are almost totally unknown. The conspiracy makes it all so much more exciting. We see Bush on T.V. every day. The characters get a face (especially the villians.)

Simplicity: International politics and different cultures are too complicated. The facts don't give us someone to directly hate. They can't get self-righteous and scream and yell. They don't have anyone to track down and take action against (remember, I'm talking about the couch sitting gossipers. They're not going to strap on an M16 and go fight anyone.) The enemy is not a vague ideology thousands or millions of people loosely identify with, but 10 guys smoking cigars in a room together. They can track down the "real" terrorists watching T.V. and surfing the internet.

You can see where control, excitment, and simplicity might all play into one another. Make it simple so you can bring the problem into a realm where you can pretend to have some control. Get excited about each bit of information you string together on your couch, because it brings the situation that much more under control. Simplifying the complex realities makes it easier to get worked up and excited about.

Hmm... the more I think about it, these three points could equally well apply to anti-evolutionists, Holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxters, anti-big-pharma alternative medicine advocates... and on and on. There's definitely a pattern here.

[JamesDillon]

Popular Mechanics ran an article in March 2005 debunking the 9/11 myths, which is available online:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

[Gulliamo]

Argh! I wish I had found this thread before I asked the same questions here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=53349
Thanks for the good info and links!

[Manny]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Doesn't get any clearer than that.

It's also worth noting that among the passengers and crew who would have been killed or otherwise disappeared to "complete" any fictious story about AA flt 77 doing something other than crashing into the Pentagon was Barbara Olson, the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Ted argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. So in order to believe this theory one must suppose that one of the people most responsible for putting the President in office (and a long-time Republican fix-it guy in any event) either a) was left out of the loop on the conspiracy or b) desired to kill his wife, an unbelievably popular political commentator in her own right or c) Barbara Olson is alive and in perma-hiding.