http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTU-62AHwgQ

the film doubts the official version of 9 11

Oh for heaven's sake, take your silly conspiracy rubbish somewhere appropriate:

 http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

or www.bautforum.com

See how long hour half baked science and selective use of evidence will last there (hint: about 10 minutes).

Funny that I see your moniker turn up on most of the 9/11 articles, you don't normally have a lot to say, by now
you have so seriously debunked the alternative 911 theories that I wonder why you still bother to add your one liners to every thing posted on the subject.
Now as far as I know indymedia was set up to cover stories that the corporate masonic media ignored like to
give the "alternative" view on what is actually happening. Right !
So it would appear that Indymedia was just the place to publish 911 articles and to be totally honest I think we could do without the comments altogether. You have been around for a while and there alwasy seems to be
a resident group of people hanging around IMC UK who are basically towing the governments line by keeping
up a constant barrage against certain stories. As far as I am concerned IMC UK is the appropriate place
for articles on 911, perhaps as a member of the professional classes you should be hanging out somewhere
else like maybe the Temple Bar or Duke Street ..... architect of the Universe perhaps ?

Truth is quite simple; I read IMC for stories that the media don't report, or to get a different spin on it.

What REALLY annys me, however, is when 911 Truth nutters spam this site with the woefully researched, unsupported rubbish that constitutes their theories. Steel doesn't fail in fires. There were no planes. Evil Silverstein did it for the money. The towers fell faster than free fall (like, how is that even possible?).

THEN I respond.


Or is it really just that you're upset because I keep putting the boot into the 911 Spam?

i think it was 'loose change', but not sure. anyhow, it was internally inconsistent, made use of clever edits of expert testimony (a disclaimer at the end said the experts didn't endorse the theories their testimony was used to support), and irrelevant emotive sequences of victims set to moving music (in the style of classic propaganda). i'm by no means an uncritical believer in the official line, and from stuff like operation northwoods to italy's 'strategy of tension', it's pretty well established that states are willing to kill their 'own' people if it serves their purpose and they think they can get away with it. but the alternative theories i've seen have been even more based on spurious conjecture, psuedo-science and implausible conspiracies than the official version.

Personally if i was a black ops guy planning 9-11 as an inside job, i'd involve as few people as possible, hire a load of islamic militants to do the job, via former CIA contacts (al qaeda) so they wouldn't know who you were, and then pull enough strings to 'let it happen' - ordering fighter jets to stand down etc. no need for demolition explosives, missiles, holograms or lizards, and not much of a paper trail and few witnesses. but that's just me.

It is pretty evident Loose Change was started as a fictional work reverse engineering hypotheses with information in the public domain.

As a documentary it falls down in being uncritical and selective ofthe information it runs with.

The blog critique points to a wealth of factual distortions and misrepresentations.

Like others, I am deeply skeptical of the hypthoses regularly parroted here without the slightest effort to examine the feasibility of them.

If half the nonsense was true, it would indicate the work of total morons who couldn't successfully pull of a pyramid scam or tax fraud let alone the biggest crime on US soil since the genocide against the Indians.

Like suggested, the best conspiracies are kept as small and simple as possible.

If I were Bush & Co. and the massive Enron scandal was about to blow and my pals and possibly myself were looking at jail time, I'd quietly tap on the shoulder of my friends in Saudi- someone in a position to manipulate an Al Qaeda cell. The cell would be trained and funded to actually carry out a real attack (thus as far as possible burying the evidence of an inside job).

The motivation behind the attack could be sold on various levels. To the PNAC mob: get rich, get out of jail free, get a place in history. To Saud: Get rich; get rid of that nasty Bin Laden brat and then that fucker Saddam, plus after the fact be able to uncontroversially knock off some prime movers in the effort to force regime change in Saudi. To the al Qaeda patsies: jihad, fame and the prospect of causing the US to attack Saudi and attract untold mujahadeen into the Holy Land and provoke civil war against the Saud Infidel lovers.

You may even have the situation where only one person in each time is a fully trained pilot and the rest think they are going to divert the flights... who knows. Many of the identities of the hijackers may have been stolen or even flat out fabricated by Saudi intelligence Al Qaeda sympathisers.

Of course, I have absolutely no evidence of this at all. But doesn't it all sound a lot easier than rigging a building with some crappy and unpredictable incendiary compound, threatening or paying off every forensic scientist on the globe (even your enemies!) and faking a whole host of other evidence?

Why run the risk when all you need is a handful of people in the know and the rest are unwitting pawns who couldn't reveal the truth if you stuck a soldering iron up their urethas!

This way or similar, the only people who could blow the gaff are those on the inside. The won't because they get the death penalty for it.

By the same token, the whole thing could have played out the same way without Bush & PNAC even being complicit. Or all it would take is GWB and Bandar and one point of contact with Al Qaeda connections.

Loose Change's take on things is straight out the pages of some Hollywood script that would forever rot in a landfill site.

it is poss for things to go faster than free fall speed mr Architec.. you just need to add more energy to accelarate them...doh

"it is poss for things to go faster than free fall speed mr Architec.. you just need to add more energy to accelarate them...doh "

Entirely correct. Now you show us all the wee rockets attached to the WTC debris, then you'll have a point (sheesh)

I saw plenty of pieces of steel firing upwards and outwards like 'wee rockets', and plenty of squibs coming out of the buildings like 'wee rockets'
I saw clearly energy generated that was not consistant with the small fires that are supposed to have brought down all THREE buildings.

Investigate 911

"I saw plenty of pieces of steel firing upwards and outwards like 'wee rockets', and plenty of squibs coming out of the buildings like 'wee rockets' "

And you alone saw these. Well, you and Steve Jones. All the rest of us - architects, structural engineers, fire engineers, and demolitions specialists - have somehow been fooled, have we. Face it. The only thing you saw was collapse ejected debris.

"I saw clearly energy generated that was not consistant with the small fires that are supposed to have brought down all THREE buildings."

More rubbish. Those of us who actually watched the news feeds saw real fires, with flames licking out of windows and people forced to jump because of the heat and smoke. Those of us who read the NIST report saw this confirmed by fire modelling.

Once again the uneducated CT mob our board with unmitigated and poorly researched SPAM.