I first saw Loose Change at least a year ago, and since then, after almost every argument in the movie has been torn apart, the Loose Change creators are still blabbing about finding the truth for the victims. The thing is, Loose Change is no longer about the truth, it's about going against what every expert thinks.

The Loose Change creators trie to manipulate facts to fit their own arguments instead of drawing conclusions based on research. It doesn't matter what evidence you throw at them to disprove them. They just say you're making it up and continue to pick and manipulate facts to fit their arguments.

As an aeronautical engineering student, some things in Loose Change just drive me crazy.


The movie severely underestimates how much energy and forces involved in a plane crash at 500+ miles per hour. At those speeds, metal does not tear into big pieces, it is shredded or vaporized.

I find it insane that the movie claims that because the Empire State Building didn't collapse after being hit by a B-25, the WTC shouldn't have. This is like comparing being hit by a freight train to being hit by a tennis ball.

With regards to the pentagon, how could a missile zigzag and hit 5 light poles and a generator before hitting the pentagon? Oh, it left a small hole. Does anyone know what happens when a plane hits a cement wall at 500mhp? It isn't pretty. The hole in the inner ring of the pentagon was not from the nose cone of the plane, it was from the front landing gear strut, the densest, most heavy duty part along the centerline of the plane.


If Loose Change really is about the truth, and standing up for the victims, it's creators have to stop being so stubborn and unresponsive to facts and evidence that don't agree with their argument. It's an insult to the victims for Loose Change to claim it's all about the truth when all it really is about is disagreeing with everybody

Reminds me of NIST/UL/FEMA/ASCE/BPAT/9-11 Commission/Weidlinger/Bush Whitehouse/Administration/Cabinet

As a human being, the fact that you continue to ignore the original unanswered questions put forth by victims families (911PressForTruth.com) and the need for a true independant criminal investigation instead of the half-baked farce, concerns me.

Maybe if it crashes into thick concrete walls but not into a building. Anyways what does the crash force have to do with the falling of the building. The official conspiracy states that the impact did not cause the collapse but it was the jet fuel fire that burned hotter than nature allows and the steel somehow couldn't discipate/spread/absorb/spread/chase the cold long enough. Well from history, common sense, precident and experts like the ones at:

http://PatriotsQuestion911.com and
http://AE911Truth.org

...truthers don't believe that was the case either.

Not exactly. The plane that hit the Empire State Building was ~9 tons and the 767-200ER's that hit the Twin Towers were ~100 tons or less so that is about 10 times as heavy but the Towers were overdesigned by a factor of 20 on purpose. They were award winning, military grade marvels with the intention of taking MULTIPLE impacts at ANY speed from aircraft with more kinetic energy than the jumbo jets that hit them and they still stood.

http://PilotsFor911Truth.com, see ALL animations for anomolies beyond the scope of the argument put forth in the age old classic, Loose Change 2nd Edition.

They can't satisfy everyone especially when they are busy watchng films, researching, reading books, making interviews and making new films.

We are all really busy so forgive us if we gloss over; we just can't please everyone, especially and the same time to their demands and myopic intellect and reasoning.

Its funny how now and then people pop up and keep saying the same shit.

If you truly stand for truth.....blah blah. Insulting family ...blah blah.

Many family members of victims have questions and are demanding new investigation. Do you support the investigation demanded by the family members?

Mate, if only 1% of loose change is true, which is less than the real value then the C-word is relevant.

I definitely think there should be much more of an investigation into what happened. I don't believe in the controlled demolition theory, or any of the conspiracy theories in Loose Change really, but I do think there is a lot of mystery surrounding 9/11 and that the Bush administration did not make an attempt to stop the attack.

I don't know if the administration knew exactly what was going to happen, but I think they knew an attack was coming, and didn't take steps to prevent it. I don't think the attack was a conspiracy carried out by the government though.

If you dig deep enough you could find conflicting facts and statements for any argument.


I feel like if evidence was presented to the Loose Change creators that proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their arguments and theories were wrong, they would still continue to try to mold things to fit what they believe.

Loose Change should be about finding the truth, not finding facts to support what it's creators believe. I feel like they aren't looking at things from an open perspective. They try to find facts to fit their argument. If they really are after the truth, they should form theories from evidence they find, not look for evidence to support their theories.

There are some errors in the previous Loose Change editions.

I don't know why the Israeli connection is not covered. And hopefully the missile crap won't be in Final Cut, other than that it's a good film

An excellent post, vaca, and welcome to the forum.

Your maths teacher lied to you, 100 is not 10 times 9. It's 11.11. And the towers were NOT over designed by a factor of 20 - certain PARTS of the tower were over designed up to a factor of 20 .. like say the parameter columns - but most of the tower was "over designed" by a far smaller factor (4 or 5). Of course this still raises problems because even if the planes created enough damage to reduce the strength by 70% on a single floor (including broken columns and heated steel) - and it was over designed by a factor of 4, then it still should have retained enough strength to stand. Unless of course it wasn't evenly distributed (which it wasn't) - meaning that one side could have given way and then the other side did... wait a second that's EXACTLY what happens in the collapse video! Keep in mind also that it's also possible the floors were heavier then expected (or "estimated") at the time of collapse.

Absolutely. There's never any harm in genuine investigation.

Wait wasnt the floors stable after the strikes. Thats what many experts said. Even with the offical story the building had stablized after the hit. They where no longer swaying or compressing on the lower floors. The Offical story stated that it was the fires burning at 600-800%F that weakened the steel to the point of collaps.

He also forgets that the 767 was going hundreds of miles per hour faster than the B-25 which hit the Empire State building, and the WTC and the Empire State Building have very different designs. If anything, the ESB is probably more overbuilt than the WTC since it's an older building

I've got a few questions about this new investigation:

- Who would pay for it?
- Who would conduct it?
- What if the results only reaffirmed the OT?

It's hardly a theory. EVERY fact of the "collapse" points towards explosives...

The seismic data doesn't.

It won't be. ;)

Definitely not you after you showed you're great investigating skills in the 9/11/2007 thread. :lol:

Why can't you guys resist this kind of ridiculous hyperbole?

I'm going to jump in here and say that I have heard no reasonable explanation for the perimeter columns bowing inwards up to 30 minutes before collapse. Nor have I heard reasonable explanation that if the towers were so structurally stable why were the floors observed to be breaking incrementally over a period of time?

Many of the supposed facts which would support controlled demolition (collapsed faster than it would without, jet fuel fires had to be so hot etc) tend to be either misinterpreted and then taken out of context or simply a product of wild speculation. Yes it is entirely possible that 911 was an inside job and the towers were taken down by controlled demolition but frankly if I was being rigorous about this you would not only have to provide the evidence to support this but provide the logical reasoning behind the decision.

Take for example 'Max Photon', he has invented a theory which is unfalsifiable and fits with every fact, however his belief in this theory is clearly based on a presupposition of controlled demolition. He has formulated this theory with the idea that controlled demolition happened as his only principle and as such the effects of his theory exactly mirror the effects from fire to the extent we can measure. Of course there are some problems with his theory and it is easy enough to discount but it is important to realise that finding evidence of controlled demolition which is subject to a presupposition is not evidence of controlled demolition period.

With regards to some other points, there is a clear understanding of the most basic principles here:

Kinetic Energy is E_(k) = ¹/₂ mv², the difference was at least an order of magnitude above what you are implying. The only load with any kind of safety factor as high as 20x was lateral wind load (I believe), the rest of the safety factors were around 1.6 and in fact some of the upper level columns were remarkably close to their limit (according to NIST simulations). Not only this but the jets which hit the towers were not jumbo jets, they were both 767-200ERs. Jumbo jets are 747s.

As you can see, there is a critical lack of research present in some aspects of the truther community and in cases a presupposition. There have however been some recent events which have strengthened my belief in the honesty of part of this community. NK-44 as ever seems to be dilligent in his research and there are a few very interesting arguments between truthers and skeptics going on at JREF. Not only that but there was something posted by (I believe) Dylan a while ago saying how experts from both sides had been interviewed for LC:FC. If this is true and LC:FC is in fact a relatively balanced look at the issue I will be elated. I hope it is.

So strike my name off the list....who does that leave?

I thought the movie was making the implication that the poles were pulled out of ground manually to make it look like a plane crash. So the missile wouldn't need to zigzag. I could be wrong, someone enlighten me.

Question how much slower does the 747 go?

Interesting arguments at JREF? That would be a first.

If you can show me one of their threads that is not filled with irrelevance or flaming or personal attacks on anyone who doesn't share in their JREFodoxy^TM I'd be amazed.

Not to mention all of the one-liners to pump up post counts. :D

I find it interesting that some people expect to find lots of pieces of airplane in such a huge heap of steel and building materials. First when the planes struck WTC they were mostly vaporized, a jets skin is not very thick. Planes, for the most part, are hollow. The goal is to make them fly, remember, a good portion of the weight in a plane is fuel and baggage and people. An aircraft is not much more than that. Hell, even the engines have a lot of airspace in them.

I wonder how much space an entire jet could occupy if it were condensed into a tight dense cube.

Can can you link me to where someone here has said they expected to find lots of plane parts at the WTC? Thanks...

What proportion of the weight of the plane is fuel and baggage and people? Please tell us.

Please link us to your source. Thanks.

That would depend on the weight of the baggage, passengers, and fuel. Most large planes carry a fuel load at takeoff that actually exceeds their rated maximum landing weight.

The maximum fuel load for a 757 is somewhere around 78,000 lbs. (about 30% of its maximum takeoff weight)

A cubic meter of aluminum would weigh about 6000 pounds. The empty weight of a 757-200 is about 128,000 pounds, so an aluminum cube 9 feet on a side would weigh about the same.

The max takeoff weight is about twice that by the way, so about half the max weight is fuel, baggage, and meatbags.

Here is a question I have been asking myself, when the planes hit the towers, wouldn't some of if not a majority of, atleast one floor be severely damaged? I understand the arguments about heat, and the dissipation of the heat, but if one floor is removed, for all intents and purposes, based on the design of the Trade Center, wouldn't the lower floors have to support the outer weight? Bearing in mind that the towers were built with trusses. And unless the wings were parallel to the ground then the titanium engines would have done a number on one floor above the strike point and one floor below (at least). Just an idea that has been going through my head since I started reading these forums. What do you Guys and Gals think?

In the design of the towers, weight of floors is not supported by other floors. For example: Floor 60 doesn't support the weight of floor 61.

Obviously the plane impacts did damage, but not enough initial damage to immediately initiate a global collapse, which would require more extensive damage.

Um, so then what exactly supports floor 61? magic?

The bottom of the tower supports the entire weight of the tower. The columns of floor 55, for example, along with everything under it, support the weight of the top half of the tower.

Cut a lint halfway through floor 60. The entire weight of the tower above that point loaded on those columns

The columns of floor 60 support floor 61 and above. The columns on floor 59 support floor 60 and above, etc.. As you get lower and lower in the tower, the structure has to support more and more weight from more and more building on top of it

Columns support it, they aren't just there for looks. The 61st floor is not supported by another floor....that's what the columns are for.

The columns do, but floor 55 doesn't support the weight of any floors above it.

The columns are not specific to a floor. The 60th floor is supported by columns, not by anything on the 59th floor. You are correct that the further down you go, the more load there is on the columns, but floors are not supported by other floors, they are supported by columns designed for that purpose.

Excluding DR Steven Jones of course who has found traces of Thermate (the commercial form of Thermite. It has Sulphur and Manganese added) in the melted steel from the twin towers. It shouldn't be there.

Like a passport of one of the hijackers found in the rubble when they couldn't even find the black boxes? And you believe that shit?

How does an aircraft flying into the Pentagon at 500mph at two feet off the ground hang with you?

Someone else who has never heard of Newton's third law of motion.

Especially when the architects said that it was designed to withstand such an impact. Flight 175 barely hit the south tower, most of the fuel came out of the side.

Yes some of the energy will be thrown back out by the effect of Newton's third law of motion.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

So there should be debris all over the lawn. There wasn't.

And you have proof of this of course?

Well leaving aside the fact that Flight 77 never took off that day. And even the 911 cOMISSION enquiry threw a spanner in the works here. They kept saying that the plane was 30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles our etc. Ten miles out from what? How did he know what the target was?

Tell me about the Gold?

For what reason do people abandon a truck load of gold bars worth (according to Guiliani) $200 million. Why would someone leave them in the back of a truck where the bars can be picked up by any passer by?

I'll tell you why. The prospect of imminent death that's why.

They knew that the south tower was about to collapse, trouble is the firefighters were saying on the radio that the fire wasn't that bad and quote "could be knocked down with two lines"unquote. So summing up the people taking away the gold from Building five knew that the south tower was going to collapse but the firefighters inside the tower didn't.

Explain please?

Pieces of paper survived the columbia tragedy....do you believe that it would be impossible for a passport to survive a plane crash?

Perhaps you could explain how the previous poster's statement demonstrated a misunderstanding of Newton's third law...?

Both towers survived the impacts...they did not, however, survive that damage combined with the damage sustained by fire.

There wasn't debris on the lawn?


That's some funny looking grass!

I assume you have a source for your claim that "flight 77 never took off"?

Was that quote about "2 lines" referring to all of the fire in the tower? Or just the fire on a SINGLE FLOOR?

Your piece is not in this picture what does that tell you?

Not only that but the light poles are still standing.

Certainly do old chum. No Flight 77

Well the person is not available for comment. However I do detect the little side shuffle you did there.

Why did the people moving the Gold know more than the on scene firefighters regarding the imminent collapse of the towers.

Yes I know you either a government shill or are lethally striken with doublethink and denial, but let me make something very clear you will be made to answer this question.

That it's from a different angle.

Are these the same light poles that are shown down in other photos?

So, because the "Bureau of transport statistics" neglected to mention the takeoff time of flight 77, you conclude that it never took off?

Ridiculous.

If you research this, you'll note that the fire-fighter was on a particular floor of a particular tower when he noted that there were 2 isolated areas of fire....what he saw on that floor had no bearing on what was happening on the floors above him that had more severe and widespread fires.

Come back when you've done your research.

It's from a wide angle encompassiong everything.

They certainly are old chum.

What they made a mistake ONLY the the very flight that mattered? And you call me ridiculous.

I cannot do any research on a collapsed tower and if the firemen weren't there as you point out then how do you know what state the fires were higher up? I presume you know that some people escaped from above the impact and are still alive don't you?

Then it would seem that your photo is not genuine....since the poles, as you claim, were down at the time of impact, which is inconsistent with what we see in your photograph...but perhaps you have an explanation

Flight 77 was the only flight that mattered?
Not being on this list does not mean that the flight did not take off...it just means it's not on that list. Period.

The firemen WERE in the tower, the one making the radio call you mention was on a particular floor. Do your research, this has been talked about at length many times.

So if knew about the fires above were bad why didn't he leave and try to escape?

Why did the people removing the gold on the sub basement level know more about the state of the tower than he did?

Because he was a firefighter. They don't tend to run away from fires and I doubt he could see the perimeter columns bowing inwards from his position.

I assume (since you provided the source as proof) that you have looked into every other flight that took off in the days surrounding 9/11 and made sure they were on the list?

Funny thing about firefighters; they're brave enough to take the risk. They didn't know the building was going to collapse, probably mostly due to the fact that they were too busy trying to put out the fires and rescue people.

From the Reuters article (bolding mine):

"Treasure Found in World Trade Center Rubble
NEW YORK - Over $230 million in gold and silver was recovered from a delivery tunnel beneath 5 World Trade Center Wednesday. Canada's Bank of Nova Scotia stored over $200 million in gold and silver in their vaults under the building. They are still unsure how much of the recovered metal was theirs. It is believed that there were other valuables stored in the vaults but there is no information on how much of it has been lost or recovered in the disaster.

Officials finally reached the trove Tuesday after removing a 10-wheel truck and several cars that had been crushed by the debris. No bodies were recovered. More than 100 armed officers watched the workers. The contents of the vaults had to be removed because authorities need to demolish the building. - Reuters and New York Daily News"

Certainly did and were you you follow the link you too can do the same.

Are I see the firefighters were too busy but the people removing $200 million worth of gold weren't too busy and at the same time from the sub basement knew more about what was happening on the upper floors more than than the firefighters who were right next to it.

So why was the ten wheeled truck abandoned then. It's not everyday you see a truck load of gold and silver simply abandoned.