New Theories Urgently Needed

[Veiled Princess 1]

blowjobgate.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

hmmm I am suprised no one brought up the "theory" that elvis is still alive, Diana and JFk made the cut, but alas i guess maybe elvis really is dead.

:lol: Something along the lines of what I was thinking too....

[Welshcookie 17]

There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.....

[Mirorgate 0]

There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.....

I used to work with Roy Orbison

[Fischkoepfin 1]

There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis.....

I used to work with Roy Orbison

No way! Did he still wear those fukced-up glasses?

[dalegg 143]

Loose Change second edition is a well put together documentary. There are a lot of good and not so good 9/11 documentaries out there. Most of them don`t have Michael Moore`s budget but some of them are just on the money with little money. In Plane Sight and Road to Tyranny are worth viewing and can both be found online no doubt.

Here is a link to a document that goes line by line debunking loose change. Print out the document and see if you still believe the film was put together that well. Download document

I'll give you a couple of my favorite highlights-

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

#2) That none of the phone calls from flight 93 could not have been made from the airplane because an independant researcher did tests proving that cell phones couldn't be made at 40,000 feet. The text in the film clearly states that the calls they are highlighting are made from AIRPHONES, not cell phones.

But the biggest debunker to this whole film is in the idea that bombs set off in the lower floors of the trade centers are what caused the buildings to fall- because they fell "in a matter exactly like that off a planned demolition" or something like that. But take a good look at the films, again, and again, and again. No part of the world trade center on the lower floors really begin to collapse until the precise moment the falling upper floor hits it.

This is NOT the way imploding buildings fall. For this to have happened the "bombs" set off on the lower floors would have had to be detonated in a very precise sequence, from upper floor to lower flower, weekening each floor at the precise fraction of a second that the falling floors were about to hit them, and that is not even consistent with the explosions the eyewitnesses heard. Can you imagine the amount of explosives planted in the towers and precise cooridination it would take to pull off such a stunt?

Here is a link to a planned detonation and you can see what I mean:

Las vegas hotel implosion Hell, just look at 50 minutes into the film of Loose Change. They will show you there what buildings set off in a controlled demolition look like. Be honest- does this look the same as the Twin Towers?

Another point of "proof" that CTs like to bring up about the towers is that the second tower fell first, even though it was "barely hit in the corner" second. I love that term barely, hit by the way. So barely that the whole of the plane remained in the tower, but that's not the point. If in fact someone intentionally bombed each of the towers to complete this very elaborate hoax "pulled of with military precision" as the narrator states, do you think they would have forgotten such a detail as which tower they should probably detonate first to make things look more consistent? These are some pretty stupid geniouses. Isn't it more likely that the reason is because there was more weight on top of the impact site of the second tower?

Finally the part about Newton's law and the proof of the "free-fall". You only need to look at footage from "Loose Change" itself to see that the tower was not in free fall, because debree flying off the upper floors that is actually in free fall overtakes the falling floors. At 52 minutes into the film you can see it, but pictures not included in the documenary show it much more clearly. Now how can something in a free fall be overtaken by another object in free fall?

But look at the entire debunking document. It should at least make you rethink the theory.

[yabasta 0]

Oh Brother.... It can't (and hasn't) be proved at all. My problem with these 'theories' is that simple common sense should discount them. You can't substitute wishful thinking (which is basically what this is) for the absence of facts.

Why is it wishful thinking to think that the royal family could well have had Diana and her muslim lover murdered? Would the official story of killed by drunk driver or paparazzi not be more wishful thinking? To totally discount the possibility shows a lack of scrutiny of the news media which i believe is a mistake. Media is owned and controlled. Thinking outside of the box is vital in my view. If you just sit back and let people tell you how the world is without ever questioning things then you might aswell let them put a lead on you and call you Rover.

Diana has said herself that she believed she was goign to be killed. Now you could discount that as paranoia if she were nto dead. If you have not investigated the story then it is irresponsible to discount it as an "Elvis lives story". Attacking a story in this way is blatantly bad for honest investigative journalism which sadly is being pushed out by corporate hacks who just repeat what the AP tellt hem happened.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh Brother.... It can't (and hasn't) be proved at all. My problem with these 'theories' is that simple common sense should discount them. You can't substitute wishful thinking (which is basically what this is) for the absence of facts.

Why is it wishful thinking to think that the royal family could well have had Diana and her muslim lover murdered? Would the official story of killed by drunk driver or paparazzi not be more wishful thinking? To totally discount the possibility shows a lack of scrutiny of the news media which i believe is a mistake. Media is owned and controlled. Thinking outside of the box is vital in my view. If you just sit back and let people tell you how the world is without ever questioning things then you might aswell let them put a lead on you and call you Rover.

Diana has said herself that she believed she was goign to be killed. Now you could discount that as paranoia if she were nto dead. If you have not investigated the story then it is irresponsible to discount it as an "Elvis lives story". Attacking a story in this way is blatantly bad for honest investigative journalism which sadly is being pushed out by corporate hacks who just repeat what the AP tellt hem happened.

Critical thinking is fine if you have a specific factual basis for your reasoning, that's all I'm saying. Hear-say does not amount to a smoking gun - as that recent Iran story clearly attests.

Example - Bush and Blair justified the Iraq war as a means of removing a dictator who (they said) threatened the US and Europe with WMD. Subsequently specific evidence has emerged that the war was not a last resort as was claimed, but was already in the pipeline as early as late 2001. The evidence that was presented to justify the war turned out to be either grossly overstated or simply untrue. Yet hardly any of that got airtime in the US - the Downing Street memo specifically was extremely damning, but hardly made a ripple in the US.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Fishdude

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

What ???? Wearing a ring or watch is NOT haram (forbidden) in Islamic law. Rather, Islam says it is forbidden for a man to wear gold. Muslim women, in contrast, are not forbidden or dissuaded in any way from wearing gold.

Not sure how this got translated into a ring or watch being forbidden in and of themselves. Many, many, many devout Muslim men wear rings and watches, as long as they are made of materials other than gold.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

[yabasta 0]

Here is a link to a document that goes line by line debunking loose change. Print out the document and see if you still believe the film was put together that well. Download document

I'll give you a couple of my favorite highlights-

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

#2) That none of the phone calls from flight 93 could not have been made from the airplane because an independant researcher did tests proving that cell phones couldn't be made at 40,000 feet. The text in the film clearly states that the calls they are highlighting are made from AIRPHONES, not cell phones.

But the biggest debunker to this whole film is in the idea that bombs set off in the lower floors of the trade centers are what caused the buildings to fall- because they fell "in a matter exactly like that off a planned demolition" or something like that. But take a good look at the films, again, and again, and again. No part of the world trade center on the lower floors really begin to collapse until the precise moment the falling upper floor hits it.

This is NOT the way imploding buildings fall. For this to have happened the "bombs" set off on the lower floors would have had to be detonated in a very precise sequence, from upper floor to lower flower, weekening each floor at the precise fraction of a second that the falling floors were about to hit them, and that is not even consistent with the explosions the eyewitnesses heard. Can you imagine the amount of explosives planted in the towers and precise cooridination it would take to pull off such a stunt?

Here is a link to a planned detonation and you can see what I mean:

Las vegas hotel implosion Hell, just look at 50 minutes into the film of Loose Change. They will show you there what buildings set off in a controlled demolition look like. Be honest- does this look the same as the Twin Towers?

Another point of "proof" that CTs like to bring up about the towers is that the second tower fell first, even though it was "barely hit in the corner" second. I love that term barely, hit by the way. So barely that the whole of the plane remained in the tower, but that's not the point. If in fact someone intentionally bombed each of the towers to complete this very elaborate hoax "pulled of with military precision" as the narrator states, do you think they would have forgotten such a detail as which tower they should probably detonate first to make things look more consistent? These are some pretty stupid geniouses. Isn't it more likely that the reason is because there was more weight on top of the impact site of the second tower?

Finally the part about Newton's law and the proof of the "free-fall". You only need to look at footage from "Loose Change" itself to see that the tower was not in free fall, because debree flying off the upper floors that is actually in free fall overtakes the falling floors. At 52 minutes into the film you can see it, but pictures not included in the documenary show it much more clearly. Now how can something in a free fall be overtaken by another object in free fall?

But look at the entire debunking document. It should at least make you rethink the theory.

Interesting points but can i just say a few things about that debunking piece and about debunking in general.

Firstly for all stories, whether they be widely accepted stories or widely disbelieved stories. Whether they be accepted conspiracy tales or conspiracy theories(which translates as bollocks to people despite the fact that people do conspire and if they do it well they keep it hidden).

Osama Bin Laden is a CIA asset which means he doesn`t exactly work directly for the CIA but they often use him as a boogeyman. The Osama in the confession tape doesn`t look much like Osama. I recall a respected BBC journalist saying he believed Saddam had a number of doubles. Maybe Bin Laden has too. Bin Laden possibly had a hand in 9/11 but the confession tape guy wa snot the same guy we usually see in images.

This is evidence in itself of real evidence manipulation and fabrication. So the argument is that the real Osama breaks Islamic law aswell as the fake Osama? That doesn`t exactly help the official story when the video is clearly a different man regardless of his jewels and disregarding his writing hand.

The very concept of a debunking article is funny as usually such debunk attempts only come out when something is hitting nerves with people. Loose Change and the other hoard of 9/11 documentaries and articles out there can be argued. They are usually weak arguments that ignore the main points. For instance the apparent "charges" seen underneath the main tower colapse are apparent to the eye. What they exactly are can be debated. The fact that they don`t ever get coverage and no real investigation took place is the main point though. If somebody gets murdered and i say it was person x and somebody else says person Y then the police say yeah we will go with person X. That does not mean it was person X. That is not how thigns should work. That would make me think the police were either lazy or corrupt.

I will look at the full article though and report back when i have more time. I just landed in England and so i am kind of lagged and bummed to be away from my wife.

[dalegg 143]

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

What ???? Wearing a ring or watch is NOT haram (forbidden) in Islamic law. Rather, Islam says it is forbidden for a man to wear gold. Muslim women, in contrast, are not forbidden or dissuaded in any way from wearing gold.

Not sure how this got translated into a ring or watch being forbidden in and of themselves. Many, many, many devout Muslim men wear rings and watches, as long as they are made of materials other than gold.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

I'm not the one who came up with that. The maker of the Loose Change film did. It proves how much research he was willing to do before putting this film together.

The very concept of a debunking article is funny as usually such debunk attempts only come out when something is hitting nerves with people.

Yeah, like wanting to make sure that your entire way of life is not different than you think it is-which is what this films proposes.

Loose Change and the other hoard of 9/11 documentaries and articles out there can be argued. They are usually weak arguments that ignore the main points.

Not in this document they aren't. The arguements are extremely strong. Discounting the charges is very simple. No need to prove they didn't happen, because the subsequent implosions didn't happen.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

What ???? Wearing a ring or watch is NOT haram (forbidden) in Islamic law. Rather, Islam says it is forbidden for a man to wear gold. Muslim women, in contrast, are not forbidden or dissuaded in any way from wearing gold.

Not sure how this got translated into a ring or watch being forbidden in and of themselves. Many, many, many devout Muslim men wear rings and watches, as long as they are made of materials other than gold.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

I'm not the one who came up with that. The maker of the Loose Change film did. It proves how much research he was willing to do before putting this film together.

I wasn't accusing you of coming up with that idea or mistranslating yourself.... the context of your post made it very clear that you were citing the film. (I haven't seen it so I can't determine if it actually made that claim or not... but I am taking your word for it.)

I just wanted to correct the misconception.

Carry on.

[gimygirl 0]

let's play a game .... you pick the osama that doesn't belong!! a lucky videotape of osama 'confessing' was made public on dec 13, 2001 (purportedly made on nov 9, 2001). yet on dec 27, 2001 another video [bBC] was released showing a very pale, gaunt-looking osama (reportedly made 10 days after the first lucky video).

"It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," Bush said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." [CNN]

[dalegg 143]

let's play a game .... you pick the osama that doesn't belong!! a lucky videotape of osama 'confessing' was made public on dec 13, 2001 (purportedly made on nov 9, 2001). yet on dec 27, 2001 another video [bBC] was released showing a very pale, gaunt-looking osama (reportedly made 10 days after the first lucky video).

"It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," Bush said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." [CNN]

Look, I got it. I don't think this picture looks like Osama so much either, but this is the picture he used when he said Osama would never wear a gold ring and watch- a completely false statement.

The fact that this guy would make such a statement without doing any more research than you or I could do using google, has got to make you wonder about any of the other things he says, and once you begin to pick apart his statements you find this kind of ####### all throughout the film. It's B.S.