Loose Change 2nd Edition

[d'Anconia]

I don't know if anyone here has heard about it but this is an interesting documentary-like video regarding 9/11. Now I'm not going to say that everything said in the video is correct or can not be refuted but it certainly raises some questions regarding 9/11.

I know some people will probably get pissed of even at the mention of this sort of stuff but I figure it's almost our responsibility as Americans to think about this sort of stuff, especially considering how important the vent was to our nation's history.

Some of the stuff seems a bit far-fetched like the voice-altering stuff near the end but, as I said, there are certain points in the movie that are interesting.

Of course in the end is it even possible to know the truth regarding something, especially the whole truth?

Here's the link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

I apologize if this is a sore subject and understand if the mods feel the need to delete this thread.

[MixmasterNash]

My theory on loose change is that 65 cents, 2 quarters, 1 dime, and 1 nickle, is the optimum amount of starting change to minimize average change weight and volume carried during the day.

[mrelwooddowd]

You need 4 pennies, also.

[MixmasterNash]

You need 4 pennies, also.

HELL NO. That screws up the entire system. And it MAXIMIZES volume per value, among other metrics. Pennies are teh Evil.

[David]

A couple days ago I found $160 in an organzier in my desk drawer. I have no idea how long it's been there.

Any ideas on what I should do with the money? I'm thinking a new pair of sneakers for work because my current ones had a huge hole on the side.

[galileo]

I'd buy myself some new dress shoes.

[mikey4402]

its an intresting doc. i was going to post it a while back but just thought the thread would get closed

[d'Anconia]

^ Yeah basically I'm just counting the minutes.

[TwiloMike]

Would you please summarize for those of us who can't watch this stuff at work what's said/alluded to in the video? Thanks a bunch.

[Spartan936]

There is absolutely no reason why this thread should be closed, unless the debate gets out of hand. The questions the video raises are important. I'm glad you posted this fatrb.


TwiloMike, the basic premise of the video is that the US government planned and carried out september 11th. Apparently it may have been done to create a "state of fear" where citizens become more obedient to government. The facts are well put together, and really suprising to say the least. It claims, among many things, that the pentagon was not hit with a jumbo jet, that the two towers were demolished with pre-set explosives, and that the cell phone and air phone calls recieved from the victims on the planes were entirely faked.

There's much more, it is an hour and a half long. Watch it when you get home. It's worth it.

[d'Anconia]

Yeah the major points I found interesting were:
a.) the security camera at the pentagon shows an explosion but absolutely no plane
b.) there is no REAL debris from the pentagon crash. Was the plane vaporized? I doubt it especially considering there is a picture of the crash site just after it happened and there is a car right next to the outside wall and it wasn't vaporized or anything even remotely close to that
c.) same thing with flight 93, no one has ever seen real conclusive pics of the debris
d.) I thought the shaking of that camera filming the WTF right before it fell with the explosion, as well as the small explosion-like things along the building were very suspicious
e.) the man who leased the WTC for 99 years a few months before 9/11 took out a huge insurance policy which covered acts of terrorism
f.) I still don't know what the deal is with building 7
g.) they say everything from one of the planes was vaporized but somehow they managed to find a passport from one of the "terrorists" on the plane in the debris down below. Paper isn't a very strong substance so no one knows how that one works out...

Again as I said it just raises questions. Just watch it when you have time and make your own conclusions.

[TwiloMike]

I've heard that story before. I don't buy into conspiracy theories, especially this one. I'm going to try to locate the rebuttal to this video- I read it someplace a while back.

[mrelwooddowd]

Yeah the major points I found interesting were:
a.) the security camera at the pentagon shows an explosion but absolutely no plane

That's funny, seeing as how many people (like my Aunt) actually watched the plane hit the Pentagon.

[d'Anconia]

No offense but I like hard evidence the best. Eyewitness testimonial has always been shakey. Don't get me wrong there are tons of people who supposedly saw the plane but I'm just wondering why on the security camera you don't see a plane or why later you don't see the debris.

[TwiloMike]

e.) the man who leased the WTC for 99 years a few months before 9/11 took out a huge insurance policy which covered acts of terrorism

Actually, the insurance policy wasn't fully inked yet. One of Silverstein's major headaches was convincing his insurers that the policy, while not 100% signed/sealed, held water and covered him in this case. I believe it was decided in court. The other headache was sorting out whether the incident counted as a single act or two acts.

edit: Also, considering that there was an attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993 (well documented, with damage sustained to the parking structure) Silverstein would have been an idiot to not take out such a policy on his towers.

[d'Anconia]

No offense Twilo but can you give me a link regarding the insurance policy not being in full effect yet? I just don't want this sort of discussion to go without us giving some evidence or proof.

[TwiloMike]

Errr.... here's what I just found. NYTimes charges for archived articles, and while I love you all dearly I won't pony up the money. So here is another article: http://www.realestatejournal.com/reg...tml?refresh=on

Exerpt:

Insurers Not Bound
On Specific Form

By Janet Morrissey
Dow Jones Newswires

April 1, 2004 -- NEW YORK -- London insurers signed temporary binders to provide coverage on the World Trade Center based on no particular policy form, a London broker told a federal court Thursday.

Henry Lawrence, a broker at Willis Group Holdings' London office, told the court he didn't believe the insurers paid any attention to the WilProp policy form that was attached to the underwriting submission when they signed slips - or binders - to provide coverage in July 2001 for the New York City landmark.

The article talks about the WTC being covered with a temp agreement while the final papers were being drawn up.

[d'Anconia]

Ya know, I'm reading a pretty good 'paper' that this guy put together. It's doing a good job of saying that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

In the end I'm thinking about this stuff and it seems like it's just impossible to get down to the truth in the matter. There will always be people disagreeing and throwing opinions into their arguments.
I was actually thinking about it yesterday; why do I even watch the news? It's still pretty much impossible to know the entire truth. I swear I'm going to stop watching the news on this type of stuff because in the end I don't think any news really affects my ability to enjoy my life. Pretty sure if I turned a somewhat blind eye to international news and whatnot that it wouldn't really affect my life that much.

Know what I mean?

[Jorge Sanchez]

e.) the man who leased the WTC for 99 years a few months before 9/11 took out a huge insurance policy which covered acts of terrorism

This sounds like a great conspiracy theory to me!

But as for e, you do know the WTC was the site of a terrorist attack prior to 9/11, right? In fact, I would be willing to bet that most major real estate has insurance against terrorism.

Edit: looks like Twilo beat me to it.

[TwiloMike]

Heh, this is precisely what most American's get accused of anyway- not caring about what happenes beyond their daily traveled distance.

I read opposing sources, consider their slant, and form my own opinions. There will always be conspiracy theories about all kinds of stuff. I don't care or them at all.

[HahnB]

The main point here is that there's no practical reason that 9/11 would have been faked. Too many people would have to be in on it for nobody to come out and tell the truth-it's RIDICULOUS to think that many people could keep their mouth shut. Secondly, there's easier ways to fake reasons to start a war.

It's funny how some idiot on google posts a video and everyone believes what he has to say, as if he magically has top secret clearance.

[TwiloMike]

It's on the internet. It must be true!!!

[HahnB]

Yea. I mean there's suspicious evidence surrounding the dump I took earlier if you present it right, and to the right audience.

[TwiloMike]

Ummm... please spare us the details. In essence, conspiracy theories are a form of propaganda, working to undermine authority. A big rolleyes to that.

[MixmasterNash]

These sorts of conspiracy theories are just stupid, for a number of reasons, that are always made clear by asking the question: "So what are you going to do about it?"

If you're a hard core Illuminati/International Jew conspiracy type, and you've stockpiled guns and ammo in your Idaho cabin and get under a ghillie suit whenever you hear a helicopter, well then, you have my respect. You are a true believer.

If you're a Bu****ler McChimpy-pants ultra-liberal sort, and you're spouting these conspiracy theories, well then, you're a god damned idiot. There's more than enough well known, truthful information to justify impeaching the current administration and crazy ass **** like this gives the right wingers another canard card to play. "Look at how crazy the lefties are! They think Bush blew up the Pentagon!" Great, you just lost the rest of the electorate.