Interesting Rebuttal Video to Loose Change...

[freakazoid]

Interesting rebuttal to Loose Change...

Screw Loose Change

Part one, two and three...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1506026976066602012&q=loose+change&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1704985757029288892&q=loose+change&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8331615143873106815&q=loose+change&hl=en

[General Septem]

I've seen stuff like this before. The majority of it was taken from the "viewer's guide to loose change" or something like that. Everything they say is inconclusive and doesn't prove anything. In fact half the things they say sound more like they're responding to hate mail than providing any actual information. And after all, with a name like "screw loose change", it certainly sounds more like a personal attack on the video than defending the government.

Besides which, Loose Change is a good video but it's not completely comprehensive. It's just a good getting your feet wet video, but it does leave room for people to make blanket statements that aren't covered by it. You remember that site I linked you to? Did you watch any of the other videos besides Loose Change?

[freakazoid]

I've seen stuff like this before. The majority of it was taken from the "viewer's guide to loose change" or something like that. Everything they say is inconclusive and doesn't prove anything. In fact half the things they say sound more like they're responding to hate mail than providing any actual information. And after all, with a name like "screw loose change", it certainly sounds more like a personal attack on the video than defending the government.

Besides which, Loose Change is a good video but it's not completely comprehensive. It's just a good getting your feet wet video, but it does leave room for people to make blanket statements that aren't covered by it. You remember that site I linked you to? Did you watch any of the other videos besides Loose Change?

General, check it out closely. They answer virtually every claim (line by line, word for word) in the rebuttal video. It's VERY well done and very interesting.

[General Septem]

Well I guess I've nothing to lose... see you in an hour. heh

[General Septem]

I'll start with part II.

RE: Does everything need to explode every ten minutes in your movie? Your audience doesn't have ADD.

Not exactly racking up credibility points here.

I think half the problem is that they feel the need to respond to EVERYTHING, rather than just the "claims". It makes it less of a defense of the government and more of an attack on the video itself.


RE: That makes one guy. More?

What do you want, an hour of interviews with each and every witness? It's not like it matters anyway, because anyone can see anything.


RE: Gallop is a profesional conspiracy theory author.

So fucking what? That's supposed to automatically discredit anything he says? Why don't you get over yourself, and start looking at actual facts.


RE: That WOULD be an odd thing to say, if a plane hadn't hit the building.

So prove that it fucking did. They do this kind of thing a lot, too. They make all kinds of claims only supported by the fact that the government said it first, and as if that's supposed to prove something.


RE: And how is this inconsistent with a Boeing 757 traveling at over 500 MPH?

If you'd shut up and listen, maybe you'd find out. Maybe you DO have ADD.


RE: Quick question. Missiles leave a smoke trail. Yet not one witness said anything about a smoke trail.

Not all missiles leave smoke trails, it depends on the propulsion system. If it was a turbine, it wouldn't leave any more smoke than a 757 would.


RE: How is that strange?

Well hmm, why didn't anyone in Shanksville report this kind of a shock wave? Plane crashes just don't have that kind of energy to shake the Earth.


RE: How many is a number? Be specific.

Does it matter?


RE: such and such is a lawyer. We don't know if he has any experience with cordite.

Yeah and what about the other guy? And also, lawyers are supposed to be smart about this kind of thing, in the odd event that something like this should happen.


RE: No shockwave? How does he know that? It's a VIDEO!

Why don't you prove otherwise rather than just yap like a pain in the ass?


RE: something about the mysterious plane having been a C-130 sent to tail the alleged 757

Why don't you start proving these things, rather than quote other people?

I hope this gets better.


RE: We did scramble planes blah blah blah

Good job, scramble AFTER the attack.


RE: Is there some reason not to expect secondary explosions when a 757 hits a building?

Can you explain why there was no debris?

This isn't getting any better. Nothing that's been said has made any sense whatsoever other than to piss me off. I'm going to skip to part three.

[freakazoid]

I'll start with part II.

RE: Does everything need to explode every ten minutes in your movie? Your audience doesn't have ADD.

Not exactly racking up credibility points here.

I think half the problem is that they feel the need to respond to EVERYTHING, rather than just the "claims". It makes it less of a defense of the government and more of an attack on the video itself.


RE: That makes one guy. More?

What do you want, an hour of interviews with each and every witness? It's not like it matters anyway, because anyone can see anything.


RE: Gallop is a profesional conspiracy theory author.

So fucking what? That's supposed to automatically discredit anything he says? Why don't you get over yourself, and start looking at actual facts.


RE: That WOULD be an odd thing to say, if a plane hadn't hit the building.

So prove that it fucking did. They do this kind of thing a lot, too. They make all kinds of claims only supported by the fact that the government said it first, and as if that's supposed to prove something.


RE: And how is this inconsistent with a Boeing 757 traveling at over 500 MPH?

If you'd shut up and listen, maybe you'd find out. Maybe you DO have ADD.


RE: Quick question. Missiles leave a smoke trail. Yet not one witness said anything about a smoke trail.

Not all missiles leave smoke trails, it depends on the propulsion system. If it was a turbine, it wouldn't leave any more smoke than a 757 would.


RE: How is that strange?

Well hmm, why didn't anyone in Shanksville report this kind of a shock wave? Plane crashes just don't have that kind of energy to shake the Earth.


RE: How many is a number? Be specific.

Does it matter?


RE: such and such is a lawyer. We don't know if he has any experience with cordite.

Yeah and what about the other guy? And also, lawyers are supposed to be smart about this kind of thing, in the odd event that something like this should happen.


RE: No shockwave? How does he know that? It's a VIDEO!

Why don't you prove otherwise rather than just yap like a pain in the ass?


RE: something about the mysterious plane having been a C-130 sent to tail the alleged 757

Why don't you start proving these things, rather than quote other people?

I hope this gets better.


RE: We did scramble planes blah blah blah

Good job, scramble AFTER the attack.


RE: Is there some reason not to expect secondary explosions when a 757 hits a building?

Can you explain why there was no debris?

This isn't getting any better. Nothing that's been said has made any sense whatsoever other than to piss me off. I'm going to skip to part three.

I believe they do a good job pointing out the flaws in Loose Change, let me know what you think when you have watch all three sections.

[General Septem]

I believe they do a good job pointing out the flaws in Loose Change, let me know what you think when you have watch all three sections.
If I watch all three. So far it's the biggest load of bollocks I've seen. You don't even need to think to discredit 99% of the things it says. Points out flaws in LC? Probably. But does it put even a small dent in the notion that the government hijacked us? Not from what I've seen.

[General Septem]

Alright, part three. This might take a while because talking to my girls gets priority. :D


RE: blah blah explosions aren't bombs I don't feel like typing the rest of it out.

I agree, some of the inconclusive stuff could've been cut out of LC. Actually even if we were talking about a controlled implosion, you wouldn't have bombs going off until the actual implosion took place.


RE: The towers fell from the top, not from the bottom. Controlled explosions are from the bottom.

Not necessarily. Traditionally, yes. In this case it would've been more plausible for them to've fallen the way they did, though. And because the buildings were so massive, and also because they were so much taller than they were wide or deep, demolition from the bottom would not have worked. These weren't ordinary buildings, remember.

I think instead of continuing like this, though, I'm going to just watch it and then make a general review. I'll get back to you.

[General Septem]

This guy's making a lot of attacks at the "American Free Press". I guess he must not be for that whole Constitutional bill of rights thing that says "freedom of press".

[General Septem]

Alright, I have to reply to this one though:

"The Lioseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolition inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds [sic] top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives 'Ludicrous'."

And how about a source on that? And how about paying attention while you're at it, Controlled Demolition inc. is the company they think was involved, no shit they'd call it "ludicrous".

"For a video that's supposed to be dedicated to the lives lost on 9/11, you sure enjoy dehumanizing them"

Why, because we want to find out who really killed them?


"And this kid's telling us about squibs yada yada yada how's the t-shirt sales doing?"

Fuck you.

[General Septem]

I can't keep watching. It's all a bunch of self-righteous bollocks, written by some guy who doesn't take time to think things through, responds compulsively, splits hairs about everything, and takes any examination of the collapses as a personal assault because "LOL DUN U NO THERE R PPL DYING IN THOSE BLDNGS?????????". I've been watching for a good half hour and I've yet to see anything actually credible.

I hope you don't think I'm attacking you, Freakazoid; you're not the one who wrote the video. I'm just not getting the impression this guy knows... well, anything. He's a typical kool-aid drinker, and the feddies are giving free handouts.

[freakazoid]

Holy shit, you don't have an opinion or two about it do ya? LOL :D Will post more later.

[Quentin_11C]

I'm trained on using explosives inside buildings almost monthly, and it's pretty funny...assuming you had enough explosives to bring down buildings like that, every window on every floor that had explosives would have exploded outward...I see no evidence of this in any videos...Even an M67 fragmentation grenade (tiny compared to the explosives needed) exploding inside even a medium sized home will shatter or dislodge windows all around the house from the rapid expansion of air, similar to putting a firecracker into a ziploc bag and closing it. Now imagine an explosive 15-20 times bigger. For example, watch a video of a controlled building implosion. They remove the windows and debris still flies out. Imagine offices full of pencils, books, and all kinds of office supplies flying around?

[General Septem]

Not necessarily. The support columns were in a hermedically sealed core relatively far away from the windows.

[Quentin_11C]

Air tight, right? Do you know what happens when you contain that many explosives in an airtight space? When they detonate, the airtight seal acts as a force multiplier for the explosion. There would have been no implosion, just a giant explosion...very similar to overinflating a baloon.

[General Septem]

Not necessarily. The explosions would've only had to have been sufficient to cut the columns. If they were weakened before the explosives were placed, and they used the right kind of explosive, most of the energy would've gone right to the beam. I agree, imploding the twin towers would've been a hell of a feat, but I don't see it happening any other way. And it most certainly did not happen the way the Commission Report said it did. That much is 100% certain. I mean, that report outright lied about the construction of the towers anyway.

[freakazoid]

Hmmmm, very interesting debate here about the explosives issue. Interesting points being made. I am reading each statement and retort.

[Quentin_11C]

Can someone find me a weather archive for 5 Sep '01 - 10 Sep '01 for NYC and Manhattan? I'm too busy with soldier stuff to look it up...

[freakazoid]

Can someone find me a weather archive for 5 Sep '01 - 10 Sep '01 for NYC and Manhattan? I'm too busy with soldier stuff to look it up...

Check out...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

[Quentin_11C]

I was hoping to find the weather conditions at the time of the incident, but so far nothing...I had a theory that weakening the structural integrity of the buildings would have collapsed the towers w/o explosives due to winds at that altitude...given the fact that buildings that tall sway even in lower winds...but so far, no solid proof for me :rolleyes:

[General Septem]

If that's the case, how could they possibly have fallen straight down?

[freakazoid]

I was hoping to find the weather conditions at the time of the incident, but so far nothing...I had a theory that weakening the structural integrity of the buildings would have collapsed the towers w/o explosives due to winds at that altitude...given the fact that buildings that tall sway even in lower winds...but so far, no solid proof for me :rolleyes:

Hmmm, very interesting theory here. Will have to check into that further. The winds could have, guessing a bit, had a role in the collapse of the towers as could many factors.

[freakazoid]

If that's the case, how could they possibly have fallen straight down?
The phenomenon of resonance could have contributed to the collapse of the towers.


See... (Google asks for 50 cents to view this video, but you can watch most of it for free. It's short, 1 1/2 minutes) ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8848571026603178234&q=bridge+collapse

And this free one...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8849554834285920420&q=bridge+tacoma

And also this free one...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7165319145385181600&q=bridge+tacoma

And this one...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7836010763965729158&q=bridge+tacoma

And these...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5699266742935386503&q=bridge+tacoma

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319464012116673004&q=bridge+tacoma

[dekrantenjongen]

Anyone who does not believe loosechange911.com is plainly - too afraid to realise that most of their values and heroes are based on BIG FUCKING LIES by their government -

Fuck Dick Cheney and fuck George W. Bush.
dek