What was your first reaction to watching loose change for the 1st time ? I watched twice & was left thinking surely not . A couple of days of thinking about the documentary i watched again with my girlfriend , she was amazed at the truth. Now iam a fully fleadged believer in the cover up . What about you?

I watched the movie with a little research done before, so pretty much I was convinced.

I Believed it the first time I watched it, ive watched it about 10 times. I dont do the pledge of Alligance in school anymore after seeing what happend in Loose Change

When I first watched it, I was in a complete state of shock. I believed it, but was in shock.

May I ask what people thought after watching screw loose change??

Screw "Screw Loose Change"

bullshit

Did you think it was all rubbish or just certain parts?

My first thought was: "How awesome! These guys are great!"

I was so happy to see that these guys had taken their time to put together such an easy to watch narrative that included so many facts. I knew 9/11 was an inside job once I saw the reaction GWB had to Andy Card's whisper on TV. I think that was sometime in the evening of 9/11/01. It has taken me a long time to figure out that I could actually make a difference in our world by speaking out publicly. The mind-control trick of making people think that they are alone in their dissent (the illusion of agreement) is one of the best tricks that "they" have got.

Glad to see you've broken through the lies of the official hoax!

you should still say the pledge of allegiance

your in this movement to protect this country from a 9/11 type event happening again and for the nwo to be formed

u shouldnt be againest america, you should be againest fascim and the nwo

I've seen/read various film documentaries/flash presentations/articles/etc about the 911 conspiracy
I enjoyed this one a lot, far more than most I've seen.
Not for its factual content, or persuading me more than others
(before I'd heard anything from anyone I was preaching blasphemy about 9/11... watched cnn for a few days during/prior to the "attacks" and it was just beyond preposterous the ammount of misinformation, conflicting information.. changed opinions from experts... purely false scientific claims, and so forth)
but mainly... the narration, and the bleak cynical humour element that kept me watching
I'm of a firm belief that humour is one of the greatest tools at our disposal. You make something laughable and anything can be said about it. You make something serious and people are shot, arrested... detained, flamed by the media... whatever it takes for speaking their mind.

I find ironically enough that often times sarcasm brings out more truth than serious direct discussion.

That can be more easily refuted, (perfect example the bit at the end between the professor and the FUCKNUT correspondant from fox... he has the easy job of shooting down everything said... and unfortunately a vast number would beo n his side)

This film highlighted the ridiculousness of these events...
Thats the only word suitable for the so called attack, and the official stories
RIDICULOUS
ridiculous can be funny... if we laugh, we mock those who try to spoonfeed us bullshit...

ok example: you're abducted by aliens and rush home to tell everyone. what's more disheartening?
a) a direct "I don't believe you, its compeltely impossible"
or B) "BWAHAHAHHA as if I'm supposed to believe that"

and thats how I feel, and always have felt about the 9/11 "supposed" truths that we've been fed...

anyways I'm just ranting now, I'll stop

My first thought was how in the world are people buying this stuff? The "documentary" is full of errors, half-truths, unsubstantiated claims, irrelevancies and misunderstandings. That thought hasn't changed much...

Just like the official version, but that fits many people, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

That's a laugh. The "truth" movement consists of a bunch of people who knows jack sh!t about the subject matter, but that doesn't stop them from posing and pretending they do. Will a structural engineer or any other expert in any of the relevant fields be fact checking LC:FC? Oh no, it'll be a theology professor (Griffin?) who does that.

The truth is that the hundreds of scientists from various universities and corporations did a marvelous job on the NIST report, stop insinuating otherwise and stop the insinuations that the people who were victims of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were in on it and come to terms with reality.

However, I'll limit myself more to the "skeptics" section from now on.

It looked scary till I did some checking into some of the alleged facts of the film. :(

Griffin is so many things other than just a theology professor... you are the one who know's jack sh!t about the subject matter...

can you explain why the pakistani government wired 100,000 dollars to Atta? Can you explain why NORAD stood down? Can you explain why Bush signed exec orders to keep FBI from getting the hijackers pre-9/11? can you explain how norad intercepted 60 flights in 2001 but failed four times on 9/11?

Thought not.

If you read the transcripts from NORAD for 9/11 you will soon see what happened. No doubts you will say there were faked though. You seem quite happy to forget that NORAD was there to protect the US from other countires, so guess which direction they were looking? Guess which directing the newer and better radars were facing?

What happened on 9/11 was completely beyond the scope of NORAD set up and procedures. Maybe that is why the terrorists did it? This comon idea that all terrorist are idiots and live in caves is what got the US into this trouble in the first place. Terrorists are clever, don't have to play by the rules and will exploit weaknesses.

Sneaky bastards. :(

[QUOTE=look-up,Feb 20 2007, 08:05 PM]
[/QUOTE]
Griffin is so many things other than just a theology professor... you are the one who know's jack sh!t about the subject matter...[QUOTE]
Care to elaborate? What are his qualifications on matters such as fire investigation and structural engineering for starters?

[quote]can you explain why the pakistani government wired 100,000 dollars to Atta?[/QUOTE]
Yes, with the word BS. That claim from an Indian newspaper has never been independently verified. India and Pakistan aren't exactly friendly neighbors either. And even if ISI payed Atta (which they didn't), how is that proof of a U.S. government conspiracy?

[QUOTE]Can you explain why NORAD stood down?[/QUOTE]
BS again. Before 9/11 NORAD was to defend the U.S. and Canada from external threats, not to intercept flights over the U.S. mainland:
(a) This subpart prescribes rules for operating all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in a defense area, or into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) designated in subpart B.

(B) Except for §§99.7, 99.13, and 99.15 this subpart does not apply to the operation of any aircraft-

(1) Within the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, or within the State of Alaska, on a flight which remains within 10 nautical miles of the point of departure;

[QUOTE]Can you explain why Bush signed exec orders to keep FBI from getting the hijackers pre-9/11?[/QUOTE]
Care to present any evidence?

[QUOTE]can you explain how norad intercepted 60 flights in 2001 but failed four times on 9/11?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that claim is pure and utter BS. In the decade before 9/11 (and it's entire history I believe but don't quote me on that), NORAD had intercepted one aircraft and one aircraft only.[QUOTE]

Exactly!!! I don't know how these suicide bombers can live with themselves.

Never heard about Steven Jones, I presume? But I don't that much knowlegde from some retards concerned only about not agreeing "just because".

PS Thanks for showing us that you've never read NIST publications. Oh, and thanks for fleeing away to the rest of your friends. I won't cry, don't worry.

Sure.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4293682,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

Also:
http://infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm

I believe it's absolute bullshit.

Yes, I have. Please explain to me his qualifications in structural engineering and fire investigation? Please explain to me the fact that his "scientific" paper fails to meet basic scientific standards (i.e. lack of methodology, unverified claims, etc.)? Why did his paper initially contain misquotations and why is there still at least one manipulated picture in the paper? Why doesn't Steven Jones provide evidence that thermite ever has been used to demolish buildings (which of course thermite has never been used for)? Heck, why doesn't he provide evidence for any of the claims he's making?

Your claim that this was a Presidential order is wrong. How is this even related to 9/11? Read the damn article, for crying out loud:

The file was closed five years before 9/11 during the Clinton administration (and without any Presidential involvement). What was done with it after 9/11? Well, the answer is in the article you linked to:

Why are you addressing me like a Steven Jones' spokesman? Do you think that I'm able to read in his mind? If you're so obsessed with attacking a person rather than his arguments, email him.

I wasn't attacking Steven Jones, I was questioning his paper. You brought him up, not me. Please answer the other points in the edit I made.

Steven Jones is a qualified physicist, and that makes him an expert, and, since there was more to physics than to engineering in the collapse, a relevant expert.

What has cold fusion to do with structural engineering, fire investigation etc.? The fact that he's a physicist doesn't make him an expert on said subjects. Steven Jones is qualified in his area (and apparently other areas as well, such as proving that Christ visited South America), but not in the areas which are relevant for the investigation of the events on 9/11. And no, structural engineering is relevant for the study of the collapse, not physics per se.

And you still haven't responded to the other points.

Just point out the flaws in his report to him then, if he's so horrible a scientist, FFS...

I never said it was a direct presidential over.

Tower, at least try and understand what I'm saying.

Yes, you did:

I asked for evidence whereupon you posted the links.

This was the quote from Prison Planet which cites Ananova. Going back to the primary source (the BBC), was this what BBC was saying? No, it certainly was not and I've discussed this a few posts above. You posted the link to the original BBC article, so you should know what it says. It's also interesting that Palast says that the file which was closed in 1996 was reopened after 9/11.

Leave your rethorics to yourself.

Learn to read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
Once again:

I remember the first time i saw loose change, i had already seen Martial Law 9/11. but i wasnt convinced, expecially because i couldnt really fit it all together. and it seems crazy the first time you hear it. But after watching loose change... it all fit together more, because loose change condenses it and makes it easier to understand. I remember though, right after i watched it i was sure 9/11 was an inside job.

hmm.... besides i just wasted 2.5 hrs of my life.... i tthough about how their main evidence was really just saying it was an unprofessional documentary. I doubt screw loose change actually changed anyone's position.

Quoted for Irony.

Double think that one there, chief.

HAHAH!! :lol:

I wonder what Jason Bermas thaught when he saw it what about Korey aswell

It was possibly the worst attempt to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories since debunking911.com...

A Question for Dazz- Can you explain to all of us why the structural steel from WTC was out of the country in a matter of DAYS? Even the bumblers at FEMA didn't get a chance to f*ck it up.

If this was actually a conspiracy by the government, killing thousands of their own people, you would think that they wouldn't think twice about killing the loose change guys of proving the "conspiracy."

The government could have easily filtered anything related to conspiracy and shut down websites; Loose change would never have been on the internet for more than minutes.

I guess I don't say the pledge beacuse i dont believe in god but that's just me.

I watched it with the understanding before I didn't believe the pentagon attack was real but it did raise a lot of questions. Beyond the 300 questions loose change brings up I have tons more. Knowing what I do also about thermite and how it burns (which is another theory ive heard) it is fully possible to do. If you put enough small bombs or thermite in enough locations those buildings will come down within seconds if you trigger it all right. Imagine the testing it would take....or if you accidently grounded the wire to set off the thermite :o