The ultimate debunking article on Loose Change, please.

[Murray]

Yes, I know, it's been posted several times already, but hear me out;

All I'm asking for is a link ONE (1) link that in a compelling way debunks the documentary Loose Change (the movie that claims september 11th to be a conspiracy set up by the gouvernment in order for them to do as they please).

I'm NOT asking for a discussion wether it's true or not.
I'm NOT saying that you should belive the claims in that movie.
What I AM saying is that I personally found the movie extremely compelling and that I'm asking that anyone, reading this, could link me to the one article that has the ultimate debunking to contradict a bunch of (if not all) the claims in that movie, because all I've seen so far are a bunch of links each claimed to be a debunkings of the movie, but when I start reading them, all I see is a bunch of introductions and I'm a very lazy man.

I don't want to read several lines of poinless bullshit that has no point whatsoever of what I want to know. I want to get to the point, so what usually happens when I read is that I figure, is it worth to read all this? It may be just some bloke ranting without any compelling proof at all, and does that make it worth the time to read through all this? I usually end up (or rather always end up) not reading the thing.

I know there are someone here that does definately not belive in the conspiracy theory. <coughCptSterncough> Pherhaps this person has a link for me? And no, I'm not making any personal offensive mockings, I'm simply curious what made you not belive in the conspiracy theory.

What I'm most eager to hear about is the following:

- How come the buildings collapsed to the ground at the same amount of time it would have taken for a rock that would have been dropped from the top of the buildings? What makes it clear that it was due to the planes and the planes alone and not some planted demolition explosives (that were mentioned by a sh-tload of interviewd people, in the movie, in the form of huge explotions) that the buildings fell that fast to the ground?

- Why are people so sure it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the Pentagon when it looked more like the work of a cruise missile?

- Why is it that people are certain that the 4th plane was a plane when the movie shows that there was no compelling evidence to that claim? No large plane parts, no bodies, "not even one single drop of blood"?

Also I have nothing against any debunking to anything I left out. Thanks for your time.

 

[spookymooky]

Occam's razor?

 

[CrazyHarij]

The truth is out there...

 

[Murray]

Seriously. I wanna hear about debunking. I do not, I repeat DO NOT belive in any of that simplicity bullshit. I want debunking.

 

[Dalamari]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

9 pages long, read

 

[Murray]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

9 pages long, read

Thank you.

 

[spookymooky]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

9 pages long, read

ouch. homework.

 

[xcellerate]

- How come the buildings collapsed to the ground at the same amount of time it would have taken for a rock that would have been dropped from the top of the buildings? What makes it clear that it was due to the planes and the planes alone and not some planted demolition explosives (that were mentioned by a sh-tload of interviewd people, in the movie, in the form of huge explotions) that the buildings fell that fast to the ground?

Uhh..because gravity acts on everything...guess what if dropped a tennis ball and a rock, they might actually land at the same time, FrEaK oUt!!1!
Where the hell do you guys see demolition explosives?? Where's that proof? Show me a video of a building collapsing that wasn't due to demolition, then compare. Oh, you can't find a video of that? Awww...and yea, i remember see small 'explosions' go off as the buildling collapased, but guess what, never ever before has a been collapased due to planes, so you can't take evidence from other demolition sets and use them on this building.

- Why are people so sure it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the Pentagon when it looked more like the work of a cruise missile?

From what i saw the CIA or somebody stole all the footage, and the only frames released showed neither a plane nor a cruise missle, but i bet isaac newton has something to say about this also.

- Why is it that people are certain that the 4th plane was a plane when the movie shows that there was no compelling evidence to that claim? No large plane parts, no bodies, "not even one single drop of blood"?

Probably because for some reason, blood is vaporized during a plane crash...probably have something to do with 50,000 gallons of jet fuel igniting but who knows...

 

[Parrot of doom]

Always makes me chuckle the 'controlled demolition' theory.

Controlled demolition takes weeks of preparation, and its not only the explosive charges than bring the building down. Its weeks of cutting, partial demolition, removal of critical supports throughout the building. Nobody has bothered to explain how they managed to hide all that from the public gaze.

Oh wait, perhaps nobody bothered because it didn't actually happen.


The first edition of that loose change video proposed that there were small explosions of light as the planes struck each tower, and that these were perhaps missles? Obviously they haven't heard of Flint....

 

[Parrot of doom]

Where the hell do you guys see demolition explosives?? Where's that proof?

The conspiracists point to the explosions of air and material from windows directly below the pancaking floors - well I point as well and say "Where do you expect the air in the building to go then?"

 

[Ikerous]

Obviously they haven't heard of Flint....

Why would you make a building out of flint :/

 

[Murray]

Uhh..because gravity acts on everything...guess what if dropped a tennis ball and a rock, they might actually land at the same time, FrEaK oUt!!1!
Where the hell do you guys see demolition explosives?? Where's that proof? Show me a video of a building collapsing that wasn't due to demolition, then compare. Oh, you can't find a video of that? Awww...and yea, i remember see small 'explosions' go off as the buildling collapased, but guess what, never ever before has a been collapased due to planes, so you can't take evidence from other demolition sets and use them on this building.


no comment, but i bet isaac newton has something to say about this also.




Probably because for some reason, blood is vaporized during a plane crash...probably have something to do with 50,000 gallons of jet fuel igniting but who knows...

I could start a discussion about these claims you've just made. But I will not. Because, as I said, I didn't want to provoke a discussion about the conspiracy. All I wanted was that link that Danimal was kind enough to provide me with. Also, in preparation of any future discussions about the conspicary, watch the movie before doing anything else.

 

[spookymooky]

Why would you make a building out of flint :/

I think it was just an allusion to the fact that metal against concrete/metal often makes a spark.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Correct.

 

[Direwolf]

I always use that same PM article. It covers all the most common stuff.

 

[Parrot of doom]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change&pl=true

Thats the first edition. See how many of these 'theories', now thoroughly debunked, have disappeared from the 2nd edition.

Like all good conspiracy theories, it mixes just enough truth in with the speculation to make it appear reasonable. It is, however, a complete load of utter bollocks of the highest order.

 

[AmishSlayer]

I know tons of the evidence about the various crashes in Loose Change has been debunked but I still have yet to see some answers to other questions it brings up.

Like the fact that the only buildings to collapse due to fire are the Twin Towers and WTC 7 while plenty of other buildings have had fires that spanned more floors burning for a much longer period of time (some due to plane hits) and never actually collapsed.

The highest temperature in the fire was in the SE corner was recorded at 1300-some degrees F. Molten steel in the basement was found to be twice as hot.

How did almost all of the plane get completely vaporized into the tower while a lonely passport of a hijacker manges to make it blocks away unscathed while one of the black boxes manages to be destroyed or go missing.

How did the pilot that participated in a training exercise at the Pentagon involving a plane hitting the building end up leaving the Pentagon and wind up flying the very plane that ended up hitting the Pentagon?

If I remember correctly, most of the plane that hit the Pentagon was vaporized on impact barring small enough pieces that could be moved by hand. How could they manage to ID all of the victims but 4 then?

How did thousands of people know to place put-options on American Airlines stock and Boeing stock on 9/10 and 9/7 respectively. More than 5x the average amount of put-options on were placed on 9/7 for Boeing and almost 11x the amount of put-options placed on AA the day before the attacks.

Condoleeza Rice placed a phone call to the mayor of San Francisco 9/10 warning him not to fly on 9/11.

The owner of the WTC signed a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy 6 weeks before 9/11 specifically covering terrorism.

There's no way those cell phone calls could've been made from Flight 93 either. At cruising altitude there's a .06% chance a call could've been completed based on a study done later. American Airlines even had some press bragging about how their passengers were now able to place calls on a flight with an installed cell station on the flight. This was in 2004...

Then there's the confession tape from Osama. Not only does it look nothing like him but Osama is left handed, the shown Osama writes with his right and wears a ring on his finger which is against islamic law.

WTF mate?

I'm sure even more of this evidence can be refuted or has a good reason but I still want explanations.

 

[Direwolf]

Some of them are coincidental and just luck (such as the passport and black box oddities).
WT7 was actually a very oddly designed building. The support pillars in the first floor had unusually high loads placed on each of them, and it was later calculated that if even one was structurally damaged it would probably result in something very similar to the documented collapse.

But wasn't this NOT going to be a discussion thread?

 

[AmishSlayer]

Some of them are coincidental and just luck (such as the passport and black box oddities).
WT7 was actually a very oddly designed building. The support pillars in the first floor had unusually high loads placed on each of them, and it was later calculated that if even one was structurally damaged it would probably result in something very similar to the documented collapse.

But wasn't this NOT going to be a discussion thread?

I didn't post those for discussion. I want to see answers that are out there for those issues brought up by the Loose Change. I've only seen hefty chunks of the crash theories debunked, not the evidence surrounding the crashes.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What I'm most eager to hear about is the following:

- How come the buildings collapsed to the ground at the same amount of time it would have taken for a rock that would have been dropped from the top of the buildings? What makes it clear that it was due to the planes and the planes alone and not some planted demolition explosives (that were mentioned by a sh-tload of interviewd people, in the movie, in the form of huge explotions) that the buildings fell that fast to the ground?

Answer: The buildings did not fall "in the same amount of time it would have taken for a rock."

-Why are people so sure it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the Pentagon when it looked more like the work of a cruise missile?

Answer: Many, many reasons.

-Why is it that people are certain that the 4th plane was a plane when the movie shows that there was no compelling evidence to that claim? No large plane parts, no bodies, "not even one single drop of blood"?

Answer, assuming you mean Flight 93:
That claim is just plain retarded, considering that there was a large debris field, including an engine, that are the subject of a similar conspiracy theory.

All links are from 911myths.com, which I have read in full and found to contain no logical or scientific errors.

 

[bryanf445]

very intresting thank you

its really hard for me to find my stance in this matter, there are so many articles that bring up great arguments

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Like the fact that the only buildings to collapse due to fire are the Twin Towers and WTC 7 while plenty of other buildings have had fires that spanned more floors burning for a much longer period of time (some due to plane hits) and never actually collapsed.

Answer:
Tons of buildings have collapsed due to fire. The claim is that they were the only steel buildings.
However, they were not the only steel buildings to collapse due to fire. All the steel elements of this half-concrete building failed after a weaker fire.

The highest temperature in the fire was in the SE corner was recorded at 1300-some degrees F. Molten steel in the basement was found to be twice as hot.

Answer:
Molten steel is effectively a myth.

How did almost all of the plane get completely vaporized into the tower while a lonely passport of a hijacker manges to make it blocks away unscathed while one of the black boxes manages to be destroyed or go missing.

Answer:
Lots of intact debris from the plane landed on the street below. Asking why a plane crash was unpredictable is silly.

How did the pilot that participated in a training exercise at the Pentagon involving a plane hitting the building end up leaving the Pentagon and wind up flying the very plane that ended up hitting the Pentagon?

Answer:
The pilot was not involved in any such exercises, especially not with a real plane.

If I remember correctly, most of the plane that hit the Pentagon was vaporized on impact barring small enough pieces that could be moved by hand. How could they manage to ID all of the victims but 4 then?

Answer:
Destroying all the DNA in human remains takes higher temperatures than a plane crash can make.

How did thousands of people know to place put-options on American Airlines stock and Boeing stock on 9/10 and 9/7 respectively. More than 5x the average amount of put-options on were placed on 9/7 for Boeing and almost 11x the amount of put-options placed on AA the day before the attacks.

Answer:
That claim is considered exaggerated, as well as easily explained.

Condoleeza Rice placed a phone call to the mayor of San Francisco 9/10 warning him not to fly on 9/11.

Answer:
The warning was not unusual, not specific, did not come from Rice and was not a secret.

The owner of the WTC signed a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy 6 weeks before 9/11 specifically covering terrorism.

Answer:
Terrorism insurance was not unusual, especially since the towers were already attacked once in 1993.

There's no way those cell phone calls could've been made from Flight 93 either. At cruising altitude there's a .06% chance a call could've been completed based on a study done later. American Airlines even had some press bragging about how their passengers were now able to place calls on a flight with an installed cell station on the flight. This was in 2004...

Answer:
That claim is inaccurate. Cellphones can work, and the passengers had access to inbuilt seat phones, which were likely to have been used.

Then there's the confession tape from Osama. Not only does it look nothing like him but Osama is left handed, the shown Osama writes with his right and wears a ring on his finger which is against islamic law.

Answer:
The video does look like him, bin Laden acts as though he is either injured or ambidextrous and bin Laden has broken Islamic law before (by killing people, for example).

 

[jverne]

Answer:
Tons of buildings have collapsed due to fire. The claim is that they were the only steel buildings.
However, they were not the only steel buildings to collapse due to fire. All the steel elements of this half-concrete building failed after a weaker fire.
Answer:
Molten steel is effectively a myth.
Answer:
Lots of intact debris from the plane landed on the street below. Asking why a plane crash was unpredictable is silly.
Answer:
There was no actual plane involved in the training drill, just as there is no fire involved in most fire drills, so the claim that it was the same pilot makes no sense.

Answer:
Destroying all the DNA in human remains takes higher temperatures than a plane crash can make.
Answer:
That claim is considered exaggerated, as well as easily explained.
Answer:
The warning was not unusual, not specific, did not come from Rice and was not a secret.
Answer:
Terrorism insurance was not unusual, especially since the towers were already attacked once in 1993.
Answer:
That claim is inaccurate. Cellphones can work, and the passengers had access to inbuilt seat phones, which were likely to have been used.
Answer:
The video does look like him, bin Laden acts as though he is either injured or ambidextrous and bin Laden has broken Islamic law before (by killing people, for example).

lots of those answers don't really answer the technical point of view!
it's just bad luck that the black boxes got destroyed, and one single passport of the hijacker was found! hahah...jeah right!

 

[baxter]

The site that Mecha put forward is an excellent site that answers all the technical points and thoroughly debunks most, if not all of the myths surrounding 9/11. I urge anybody who as any doubts about 9/11 to read what is there thoroughly.

I can add nothing other than what has already been put forward other than this statement from NIST in 2005.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/SunderNCSTAC(2)091205 final.pdf

There really is no conspiracy, nothing, zip,zero,zilch. There is no need whatsoever to reopen the investigation; all these claims have been looked at.

Please stop believing the conspirators; they are simply lying to you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

lots of those answers don't really answer the technical point of view!
it's just bad luck that the black boxes got destroyed, and one single passport of the hijacker was found! hahah...jeah right!

Uh, yes they do. Amish claimed the plane was "completely vapourized," which was not true. He also implied that the passport being found was impossible, which is also not true.

Those are two technical claims that have been FALSIFIED.
It would have been unusual if some things had NOT been found.


Then, there's the obvious problem in your argument: you're basing your belief on what you consider to be probable, yet you choose to believe the least plausible version of events.

Namely that the highjackers and, by extension, the entire plane did not exist. (Otherwise who in the US government would highjack a plane and then kill themselves, when the most commonly assumed motive is just money?)

So, there are two claims here:

A) The plane crash left debris.

B) There was no plane, all the eyewitnesses were 'bought', all the video footage was faked, and all the debris was planted by mystery men during the most televised event in decades. Also that the tower was instead taken down by bombs that can't actually exist in reality.
Also that the passengers and the entire real plane mysteriously vanished into a void.

Now which one is less stupid?

hahah...jeah right.

 

[jverne]

Uh, yes they do. Amish claimed the plane was "completely vapourized," which was not true. He also implied that the passport being found was impossible, which is also not true.

Those are two technical claims that have been FALSIFIED.
It would have been unusual if some things had NOT been found.


Then, there's the obvious problem in your argument: you're basing your belief on what you consider to be probable, yet you choose to believe the least plausible version of events.

Namely that the highjackers and, by extension, the entire plane did not exist. (Otherwise who in the US government would highjack a plane and then kill themselves, when the most commonly assumed motive is just money?)

So, there are two claims here:

A) The plane crash left debris.

B) There was no plane, all the eyewitnesses were 'bought', all the video footage was faked, and all the debris was planted by mystery men during the most televised event in decades. Also that the tower was instead taken down by bombs that can't actually exist in reality.
Also that the passengers and the entire real plane mysteriously vanished into a void.

Now which one is less stupid?

hahah...jeah right.

shut up mecha...i just find some answers stupid!

"The owner of the WTC signed a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy 6 weeks before 9/11 specifically covering terrorism"

say what the hell you want but i consider 6 weeks a short time to make an 3.5 billion insurance policy, what a coincidence right?! JEAH...right!

an if there was nothing wrong why would the CIA size all video footage? please do tell me?



Thing is i don't belive the bush administration planned all this, nobody is that stupid or evil. It was really a terrorist attack, but the US gov saw a good oppurtunity to have its way, so they "accidentaly" ignored it.
This is called white crime my idiot friend!

I simply don't belive the worlds strongest nation could not shoot down two 747s!?

I repeat! IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, IT WAS NOT STAGED. IT WAS SIMPLY IGNORED!!


and mecha your theories are stupid! cow ploy...for christ sake?!

 

[CyberPitz]

conspiracies are fun. Anyway, what happened to this thread not being discussion?

 

[jverne]

i'm dying to see the answers mecha will bring up!

my claim is by now the most accurate one. all the evidence or lack of indicates it. it would be the most common thing someone would do. close their eyes and let it happen!

 

[baxter]

"Your claim"? Sorry what exactly is your claim?

Maybe you could lay your claim out for everybody to see rather than lunging form one topic to another and simply regurgitating garbage that comes straight of conspiracy web sites.

Are you claiming WTC 7 was brought down as an insurance scam? Provide all the evidence you have to back this claim.
Are you claiming that the CIA purposefully confiscated evidence to obstruct justice? If so provide all the evidence you have.
Are you actually suggesting that The US simply ignored everything and allowed 9/11 to happen? Provide all your evidence.

Just to clarify exactly what you are claiming could you write it out in a very simple way. Remember there is a large gulf between what you claim and reality so please provide solid concrete evidence to back all your claims.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Remember there is a large guff

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean "gulf". A "guff" is English Slang for breaking wind.

-- GUFF! LOL

-Angry Lawyer

 

[baxter]

Nice one Lawyer, well spotted, mind you breaking wind is not far from this lot of....

 

[Parrot of doom]

"The owner of the WTC signed a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy 6 weeks before 9/11 specifically covering terrorism"

say what the hell you want but i consider 6 weeks a short time to make an 3.5 billion insurance policy, what a coincidence right?! JEAH...right!

I must admit to wondering what the total cost of lost rent, demolition and removal of debris, and reconstruction of the WTC site is. I think its likely to be a lot more than $3.5 bn, which if I'm correct rather puts this argument into its proper context.

Anyone know?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

shut up mecha...i just find some answers stupid! say what the hell you want

Calm down.

but i consider 6 weeks a short time to make an 3.5 billion insurance policy, what a coincidence right?! JEAH...right!

Again:

1) Larry Silverstein insured his building against damage because that's a responsible thing to do.

or

2) Larry Silverstein magically knew Al Qaeda would attack (how?), over a month in advance, and did nothing to stop it even though the disaster is costing him huge amounts of money.

So, to you, a standard insurance policy is more impossible than a random man consciously deciding to murder 3000 people in an effort to lose money.

an if there was nothing wrong why would the CIA size all video footage? please do tell me?

Again, there is a choice:

1) The CIA took the footage allegedly showing the pentagon-hitting plane because they were conducting an investigation into a terrorist attack.

2) The CIA took the footage in an effort to cover up the fact that the pentagon was hit by a fake plane, despite massive amounts of evidence and common sense to the contrary.

What else could the videos show? Allegedly, they show the plane flying towards the Pentagon. Even you agree that the terrorist attacks were real, and the plane was therefore not faked. So, there is nothing relevant on the videos worth covering up.

Thing is i don't belive the bush administration planned all this, nobody is that stupid or evil. It was really a terrorist attack, but the US gov saw a good oppurtunity to have its way, so they "accidentaly" ignored it.
This is called white crime my idiot friend!

If it was a real terrorist attack, why do you believe that the passport was fake, the pentagon strike was fake and a series of other things?
It seems to me that you are somewhat confused.

I simply don't belive the worlds strongest nation could not shoot down two 747s!?

I repeat! IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK, IT WAS NOT STAGED. IT WAS SIMPLY IGNORED!!

Why did you expect the US to shoot down two random planes? There is no evidence of any foreknowledge, for starters.

Nor is there any evidence that the attacks were allowed to occur once they were underway.

Infact, every intelligent conclusion shows that the US was not prepared for the attack at all, which is a direct contradiction to your claims.

and mecha your theories are stupid! cow ploy...for christ sake?!

Cow Ploy was a blatant joke invented to make fun of people who will believe anything.
For example: those people who thought Cow Ploy was a serious theory.

Cow Ploy, however, still has more basis in fact than your argument, which is essentially the religious belief that the United States government is an invincible satan-figure.


Simply writing "IT WAS TERRORISTS BUT THE COWS KNEW BECAUSE I CANNOT BELIEVE COWS COULDN'T STOP 9/11" is not rational.


As baxter has said, we can't take you seriously unless you present actual evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Direwolf]

My own personal take on the CIA seizure was the fact that the Pentagon is one of the most secure and secretive buildings on the planet. They're going to be somewhat paranoid about footage for a number of reasons.

 

[Parrot of doom]

I think the Zapruda film was held back for quite some years, not because it showed more than actually happened (1 shooter only), but because it was a quite revolting piece of film to watch.

Perhaps this piece of film is considered equally sensitive.

 

[Murray]

conspiracies are fun. Anyway, what happened to this thread not being discussion?

Yeah, well, I guess it's inevitable not to have a discussion about the conspiracy theories when simply asking for a link related to it.

But since I already have the link, I guess people may knock themselves out.

 

[15357]

Peoples' god-aweshens ignorance in this thread infuriates me, even though I'm actually ignorant.... sometimes...

 

[Sebastian]

Wow, that movie really convinced me that our government is our enemy. I firmly believe that we were attacked by our government so that they could make a massive profit. There are just too many interconnected events for this to be a coincidence.

 

[Hazar]

- How come the buildings collapsed to the ground at the same amount of time it would have taken for a rock that would have been dropped from the top of the buildings? What makes it clear that it was due to the planes and the planes alone and not some planted demolition explosives (that were mentioned by a sh-tload of interviewd people, in the movie, in the form of huge explotions) that the buildings fell that fast to the ground?

not sure if anyone has answered this in the thread, didn't bother reading it.

anyways, if you've ever taken physics class you should remember that ignoring air resistance a boulder falls to the ground just as fast as a penny. So: once all the support of the building was gone, freefall takes over and everything falls at the same speed, around 9.8 m/s^2

 

[Parrot of doom]

Wow, that movie really convinced me that our government is our enemy. I firmly believe that we were attacked by our government so that they could make a massive profit. There are just too many interconnected events for this to be a coincidence.

Wow. You've totally convinced me, after all I just read your post and believed it. I didn't bother looking around and finding the answers for myself.

*converted*