911 Loose Change

[s8hanse1]

Hello all.

I know I've seen this video posted here before, but it's too good and important to forget. Please kick and keep it in front of everyone.

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848>

I burned it to a DVD and just watched it after sitting on it for weeks. I never realized what I had!

[niyad]

1. welcome to DU and thank you for sharing this--I had not seen it before!

[s8hanse1]

2. Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, I only have posted a few times but I've been here for a few years. Watch this documentary, you will be amazed!!!

[marmar]

3. I watched it on DVD last week...

and did not sleep all night. The things presented in that doc are things that I've confined to the back of my brain, but they make all too much sense when you watch the film. If you asked me 3 years ago, I would have said "No way!" Now.... :cry:

[Ecumenist]

4. Welcome S8hanse1

:hi: I've seen it too but more people need to and the sooner that it's spread far and wide, the closer we'll be to the end of this nightmare.

[salvorhardin]

5. A big steaming pile of crap?

Funny, I usually realize those pretty quickly.

[Blackthorn]

6. Once again...

...another genius backs up the official "story" of 9/11 with swathes of cogent arguments.

NOT!!!

If all you have is an insult or something other equally weak quip, then you have nothing.

[Jazz2006]

8. Well, you can't really blame someone for not ...

taking the time to post all of the lies, embellishments, inconsistencies, contradictions, and ridiculous assertions that have been discussed in great detail wrt Loose Change versions 1 and 2 because they have been discussed and posted repeatedly here and all over the internet.

Why require a "cogent argument" in rebuttal when the prior posts offered no "cogent argument" to rebut in the first place?

What we have here so far is:

"It's good" - "It's nonsense."

"It's important" - "It's a steaming pile of crap."

"I never knew what I had" - "Er, what do you have?"

Do you really think that the person responding has some higher duty to explain himself in great detail than the person who initially makes a vague statement of opinion without explaining himself?

If so, I do not agree that the rules of debate require the respondent to put any more of his cards on the table or put any more time or effort into his response than the initiator, who, in this case, has offered nothing more than a one liner opinion without any reference to anything specific at all.

Don't get me wrong: if someone posted, "I think Loose Change is very compelling because (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), then I think it is utterly reasonable to expect someone rebutting that post to spell out why they do not think it is credible in point form and addressing the points made.

But if I post simply, "I think Loose Change is great", then I do not "deserve" a rebuttal any deeper than "I think Loose Change is crap".

[New Earth]

11. you should post all the things that are wrong then

please. and not just your opinion or another side of a theory or small misuse of words like "purchased" or "leased" the WTC buildings, etc.

The point of the movie is to show what did NOT happen, not entirely explain what did happen. for 3 22 year old young guys i think they did a lot of work on this to be put down so much.

[Jazz2006]

12. See post #8. n/t

[New Earth]

14. that doesn't answer what i asked of you

if you are so sure of all the discrepancies in the movie, you should make one solid post about it, in deatil.

[Jazz2006]

17. I don't quite understand why you don't understand ...

the point that I made in #8.

Perhaps you should read it again.

In simple terms, it said that if Poster A says, "I think this a great video because (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), etc. and spells out what they think is good about it, then I agree that a proper (and perhaps dissenting) response should address (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and add whatever the responder wishes to add to that.

But if Poster A says nothing more than "I think it's great," then I don't think that requires the responder to say any more than "I think it's crap".

It's a two way street.

And, again in simple terms, if Poster A says "this is great" without offering any detail on why he or she thinks it's "great" and then Poster B says "no, it isn't," that does not put the onus on Poster B to say why it isn't great, since the initial assertion was Poster A's, not Poster B's.

So, I really think the onus is on you to point out what you think is good about it if you expect anyone to spend time answering your questions.

Like I said earlier, and repeatedly, and as you seem to have missed repeatedly, if you set out (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), you'll get a response in kind. Unless and until you do, though, I don't think you're entitled to any response that goes beyond what you offer by way of actual discussion, facts, hypothesis, thoughts, etc.

[New Earth]

19. you're still saying a bunch of nothing

but that's ok

[Jazz2006]

7. It's been discussed here on several threads

and on numerous other sites as well for years. The more serious conspiracy theory sites among the conspiracy theory sites distance themselves from Loose Change just as much as conspiracy skeptics do because they do not feel it is credible.

You can do a search on it here and find a ton of threads about it, or, more simply, you can scroll down and find examples of the prior threads on this very page.

It is and remains a crap video full of lies, distortions and inconsistencies. Someone posted recently that they're coming out with version 3 soon, which might remove some of the lies, distortions and inconsistencies that were so blatant in versions 1 and 2. But if versions 1 and 2 are anything to go by, I won't hold my breath expecting it to be accurate or credible. I do expect that it will edit out some of its most egregious lies and distortions, though.

[m0nkeyneck]

13. still waiting for a skeptic to explain wtc7;

not holding breath

loose change is just a film; meh

[Beam Me Up]

9. West Coast Premiere, Grand Lake Theatre, Oakland CA, May 2nd.

7PM. Dylan and Korey will be there. Me too!

[New Earth]

10. the video is great

no matter what some people around here may say. :eyes:

It is to be in theatres soon, after they finish the 3rd edition.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. I think it's a great 9/11 starter film.

I've read the criticisms. There isn't going to be a perfect 9/11 expose. I'm not sure I'd include the Pentagon stuff for example. But to dismiss this film as a piece of crap as so many people here do just seems like a desperate attempt to swift boat it. Or more like Dan Rather it...and prevent it from being seen.

I've watched the film. I've read the criticisms. They are improving this film with each edition. I think it's an important contribution, and it's very well produced.

[mirandapriestly]

16. That's exactly what they are trying to do

The rest of the time they are in other DU forums posting on "happy birthday" threads to people they don't know and saying things like "hee hee,nt" ten times a day so they can get their 1000 posts.

[SidDithers]

18. Which version is the accurate one...

I just can't keep track.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

20. Accurate or not...

The many unanswered questions about why #7 went down and others still remain. The documentary is great IMO, even with the few monor errors. I'm recomending it on every blog I visit and to people I know. As my bandwidth is apparently too low to watch it correctly online, I along with my brother also purchased the DVD and am presently making and distributing copies to friends. We all should!
I want to see a REAL INVESTIGATION that answers the questions raised!