MovieChat Forums > Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) Discussion > Complete *beep* Stick to the FACTS

Complete beep Stick to the FACTS

posted 13 years ago by musikbizboy
10 replies | jump to latest

I'm not saying it was or wasn't an inside job, but what I don't like about this documentary is that it does not point out all the facts. Instead it uses the facts that benefit their agenda and theory.

Has there been steel structures that have burnt and collapsed before? Yes, there has.

The dimensions of the plane were not known? Um try google. Even back then they were known.

This is just from the top of my head. I have no agenda to support Bush or anything. I am just an American who wants to know the truth, but I am outraged how this documentary does not even reference things that might prove their theory wrong.

I find this film as guilty as others for just sticking to their own agenda.

[–] USAFMXOfficer_2013 13 years ago

What makes you think it was an inside job?

Arguing with a Truther is like trying to teach a ham sandwich to play chess - Sivazh

[–] lead66 13 years ago

And how did they collapse, exactly (steel structures that have burnt and collapsed before)? If a structure that has been designed NOT to collapse does just that in a manner that is only possible by controlling it, you should just not stop thinking there and getting outraged by the inability to understand physics.
The truth starts from the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee Creek and it does not end with Iraq war. After all these centuries of rape, torture and murder it is kind of obtuse to be outraged by the 100 minute documentary where actually the only credible sources, starting from Barry Jennings to other people who actually were there, tell what they saw.

Take a history lesson and watch "The New American Century" which is up on Google.

[–] hawkins_films 13 years ago

The Titanic was designed not to sink. Reality thought otherwise. Just because something is designed a certain way does not mean that circumstances cannot defeat said design. That is not proof of an inside job any more than the "Unsinkable" Titanic sinking is proof of an inside job.

[–] lead66 13 years ago

The question is not "why" but "how". Nothing is indestructible. But even Titanic did not sink because someone farted and lit a match. If the towers were badly designed pushovers, planes would have done just that, pushed them over. But fire? Heat damage has very little to do with reality in this case. Like that official 9/11 report, which, instead of explaining how fire on top floors could heat steel to a melting point at the bottom of the building, wasted 1000 pages for detailed description on how Boeing 767 was built. How nice. Also, this is not about any conspiracies or theories, it's about what people at the scene stated, that explosions blew the crap out of the towers. This is the main reason why nothing gets ever solved, this beating around the bush and changing topic when someone asks a question to which none of the clairvoyants have answer to. This attack being a "complete surprise", yet it took just some 45 seconds to find out that Osama was the one responsible, and better yet, to announce the WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.
About that "inside job", there is this conflict of interests. It's a strange jackass way for Arabs to hand over an invitation to loot their oil fields, it would have been much easier to send an email.

[–] Uhh 13 years ago

OP, what steel frame building have been destroyed by fire? Seriously. 9/11 was an inside job and if you don't see that, your head is buried so far into the sand, there's no point in pulling it out. President Bush's PDB (Presidential Daily Brief) on AUGUST 6TH 2001 (just over a month before 9/11) stated in bold letters as the header, "Bin Ladin determined to strike inside US". How can you not ask questions when Bush remained in the school in Sarasota, FL while the country he is supposed to be leading is under attack? The only reason Bush would be allowed to stay in that school is if he knew he wasn't a target. His whereabouts were quite obviously public knowledge and he admitted on more than one occasion that he saw the first plane hit the building on TV. This of course is impossible, because the only known footage of the first plane hitting was from the Naudet brothers' firefighting documentary they were shooting the morning of 9/11 which WASN'T AIRED ON THE NEWS UNTIL LATER THAT NIGHT. How do you explain Building 7's collapse? How do you explain both North and South Towers collapse? How do you explain Hani Hanjour being able to pull a 270 degree turn in a Boeing 767, while he was PROVEN TO BE UNABLE TO FLY A SMALL CESSNA? Why exactly was the point of impact at the Pentagon the ONLY SECTION DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND AN AIRSTRIKE ATTACK? Why were there over 85 cameras confiscated by the FBI? Surely, they would have shown WHAT EXACTLY HIT THE PENTAGON. And what about the War Games? Vigilant Guardian? Global Guardian? Amalgam Virgo?

The list goes on and on... I don't need to humor you. Just do your own research. Wake up. Open your eyes. Accept the fact that WE WERE ALL LIED TO.

[–] ukernowman3-162-484367 11 years ago

You're so seriously wrong about 9/11, The mere fact that "ALL" truther videos edits out the 8 secs of footage of the Eastside Penthouse collapsing into wt7, that we can't take any of these truther videos seriousl as they are fake and fraudulent! Just go to youtube and type in "Penthouse collapse wt7". You truthers are seriously brainwashed with bs!

[–] Uhh 10 years ago

Oh really? So how exactly did WTC 7 fall in the exact same fashion as WTC 1 and 2? Why exactly did Larry Silverstein say "Pull it"? Don't give me that *beep* "he meant pull firefighters out" either. Firefighters had already evacuated WTC 7 when it fell. Why is there footage of the cops and Rudy Giulani stating "Building 7 was coming down"? Why do you ignore such obvious signs of a controlled demolition and a cover up? Why did BBC report WTC 7's collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened?

[–] a-padilla1967 9 years ago

By the way, where's the pentagon plane?

[–] kcspam 8 years ago

These kind of conspiracy theories are so stupid it's not funny. So so many naive people just accept information presented as facts along with the 'supporting' arguments.

This crap about the towers is still getting about and issue of the steel 'melting' is a simple case of misinformation.

I've worked in 'passive' fire protection which includes protecting (by various methods) the structural steelwork in a building...why? Because if any part of the structural steel in a building loses its structural integrity then it can no longer do it's job...which is to hold *beep* up. It is a simple fact that it happens long before steel gets anywhere near hot enough to actually melt. It is also a fact that the performance requirements for passive fire protection of steelwork are vastly higher for hydrocarbon fires (eg jet fuel). The impact of the planes would have stripped away huge amounts of protection on the steelwork and the jet fuel fire made the result almost inevitable.

[–] dna7823 8 years ago

Sheeples still think Osama did 9/11? Your heads will be forever stuck so far up your own asses. It's not even a question who did it anymore. It wasn't Osama and it wasn't the so called "terrorists".