Questions after watching loose change

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Questions after watching loose change
Topic Started: May 14 2008, 07:03 PM (160 Views)
Zarxrax	May 14 2008, 07:03 PM Post #1
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #572 Joined: 05/14/08	In the past I have been quite skeptical of the whole 9/11 truth movement, but today I finally gave in and actually watched loose change final cut. I thought it was very interesting and informative, and it did a pretty good job of convincing me that the official story is full of holes. However, some things still don't quite add up for me, and so I would like to present these questions and observations that perhaps someone can respond to. 1. The film makes a pretty big deal out of saying that the hijacker that flew the plane into the pentagon was a crappy pilot and probably couldn't pull off something like that. It never really goes on to say what the significance of this is though. What is this supposed to imply? He wasn't flying? He wasn't on the plane? Is it just to support the "no plane" theory? This information is certainly interesting and odd, but I'm not seeing the significance of it. 2. The film says that a building shouldn't collapse straight down, but rather it should fall to the side. Is there any evidence of OTHER buildings collapsing to the side? I'm not denying the truth of it, but I'd certainly like to see this. 3. In a controlled demolition you can SEE the explosives blowing up through the building. I don't see anything at all resembling this in any footage I have seen of any of the three buildings. The eyewitnesses report hearing a sequence of explosions. Are there any audio recordings of these explosions? 4. When it shows the foreign guy who is an explosives expert talking about how WTC7 is clearly a controlled demolition, the guy says that it is clearly DIFFERENT from the collapse of the other two towers. Isn't this a pretty significant contradiction for those who claim towers 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives? I had some more but I can't think of them right now, and its a pain trying to seek around through the movie on google video, so I'll just leave it at that for now. I look forward to hearing the responses.
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #572 Joined: 05/14/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 07:16 PM Post #2
Posts: 2,270 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Welcome Zarxrax. Too many things surrounding the events of 911 don't add up. 1. It is simply stating the fact that we are to believe that a pilot who was refused the rental of a cessna because of his poor piloting skills pulled off something which experienced fighter pilots would have a difficult time accomplishing. 2. As a matter of fact yes. - http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=demolitions+gone+wrong&hl=en&sitesearch= Specifically... 3. Yes... Some call him a shill, but you can decide for yourself. - http://www.911eyewitness.com/ 4. IMO Jonwenko(sp) saw the towers collapse beforehand and was fed the same lies we all were and therefore he was biased in his interpretation of those 2 collapses... He did not know about building 7 until that interview. Edited by JFK, May 14 2008, 07:41 PM.
Posts: 2,270 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Zarxrax	May 14 2008, 08:52 PM Post #3
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #572 Joined: 05/14/08	JFK May 14 2008, 07:16 PM 3. Yes... Some call him a shill, but you can decide for yourself. - http://www.911eyewitness.com/ 4. IMO Jonwenko(sp) saw the towers collapse beforehand and was fed the same lies we all were and therefore he was biased in his interpretation of those 2 collapses... He did not know about building 7 until that interview. As for your answer to point 3, it looks like I have to buy something from that site... any other sources? And regarding point 4, if he saw the other two towers collapse beforehand, and he is supposedly an expert in this, then shouldn't it be obvious to him that the first two towers were a controlled demolition despite what he was told? As a similar example, lets say there's some guy who is an expert on bears, and then he sees a news report that a bear at the zoo attacked someone, and they show video footage of a tiger attacking someone. As an expert on bears, he would know right away that the footage was not depicting a bear attack. But you know, I was just about ready to accept your explanation about this guy, but then I decided to toss his name into google (google suggested jowenko as the correct spelling). It turns up this video of Mr. Jowenko saying that there is no way the towers 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI I'd actually be really interested in seeing if the guys opinions on tower 7 had changed now. Edited by Zarxrax, May 14 2008, 08:53 PM.
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #572 Joined: 05/14/08


JFK	May 14 2008, 09:42 PM Post #4
Posts: 2,270 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	No... Rick does sell his DVD's but he offers the video online for free... check the site again. If you can't find it there plug 911eyewitness into googlevideo. Jowenco still stands by what he says regarding building 7.
Posts: 2,270 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Illuminate	May 15 2008, 06:24 AM Post #5
Posts: 68 Group: BANNED! Member #510 Joined: 04/16/08	1. Hani Hanjour had private and commercial pilots licenses. The chief flight instructor that refused to rent him the Cessna said "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it". Other pilots have stepped forward to say that there was nothing extremely demanding about they flying Hanjour had to do. Loose Change doesn't think this is worth mentioning. 2. More applicable for WTC 7, which was damaged near the bottom (hence video of building falling to the side all clearly were blown out from the bottom). A falling over of WTC 7 does seem possible. However, truthers have worked themselves into a corner again since their videos show that CD can result in a building falling straight down or to the side, so how can either one "prove" a CD? There is no explanation. And truthers tend to say that WTC 1&2 should have fallen to the side too (in reality none of them fell literally straight down into their own footprint anyway). Its all a bit confusing because truthers say all three looked like CD, even though they looked completely different. Basically, the definition of what a CD looks like is made up as you go along. 3. This is something truthers don't like to explain. They vaguely allude to all kinds of demolitions, simultaneous use of explosives and thermite, and whenever the evidence is lacking they just assume some new technology is being used. There is audio of booms, there are witness accounts of explosions, but the series of sharp, sequential bangs you would normally hear didn't happen. Again, all you have to do is just assume some kind of new unspecified technology which explains away every missing piece of evidence. 4. Simple. Jowenko is an expert when he agrees with the conpsiracy, and wrong when he disagrees with it. Also, when he agrees, all he has to do is watch a youtube video with no sound. No report or analysis is required, just accept it without question.
Posts: 68 Group: BANNED! Member #510 Joined: 04/16/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »