Loose Change, Second Edition: Another Investigation Into The Events Of 9/11

Submitted by: monkwarrior 1 month ago in News & Politics


The viral phenomenon is back and remastered in HD. A stunning analysis of the 9/11 attacks released late in 2005, Loose Change 2nd Edition went viral the following Spring and went on to be labeled "the first Internet blockbuster" by Vanity Fair. 

This one is going to be hated passionately by all the usual people who rely on fallacies, throw teenage tantrums over their world-views being challenged, and who just want to hate and troll those who point out the inconvenient truths about what happened on 9/11.
There are 91 comments:
Male 3,447
Who is the lactose intolerant derp that down voted my delicious sliding butter and epic melty cheese of glory?
0
Reply
Male 140
Let the sheep remain asleep. They don't care that freedom itself is at stake. 
-1
Reply
Male 87
This one is going to be hated passionately by all the usual people who rely on fallacies, throw teenage tantrums over their world-views being challenged, and who just want to hate and troll those who point out the inconvenient truths about what happened on 9/11.

This statement in the original post is hilarious.  Talk about hate and trolling and world views being challenged.  Somebody gets all bent out of shape because people accept the commonly accepted ideas and reject the fringe thinking.  Somehow, we are the ones that don't understand.
0
Reply
Male 3,447
0
Reply
Male 276


 FG gif time.

-1
Reply
Male 150
zzzzzzzzzzz    (a plane just hit my tower of z's)
-1
Reply
Male 3,651
abetterworld Nah, a plane hit your tower of N's. They just look like z's because they fell 90 degrees.
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
How about tomorrow there's none of this bullshit posted?
1
Reply
Male 5,028
lockner01 I can't hit like because it will show up as me liking the post. But I wholeheartedly agree. Let's show a little respect tomorrow for the victims, Fancylad.
0
Reply
Male 341
I think i figured out a way to fight conspiracy nonsense! You let conspiracy theorists fight among themselves about the fine points of their nutty ideas. 

All we need is a few more vocal conspiracy theorists. You see, although monkwarrior believes the moon landings were faked, he still believes that people went to space. Now, we need someone brave enough to tell monkwarrior that the NASA space station is a lie and man never went to space off our flat earth... That would be nice! 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
boredhuman Nice, fallacies, that's one off the list.
-2
Reply
Male 3,651
boredhuman Man never even left the ground. All those "airplanes" you see in the sky are holograms put there by the government. The Wright brothers' never even existed. They were Brazilian spies sent here to fool the masses, and they tried to use their "plane" as a catalyst to bomb Fort Knox.
Luckily the KGB stopped it by giving the Brazilian spies a home cooked meal, and a copy of Mein Kampf.
1
Reply
Male 3,497
I know monkwarrior posts this all the time, but for me, im just always looking for ONE modern skyscraper that has collapsed in on itself from a fire like building 7. 

I cannot find one.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
daegog Correct that to read "from a fire and significant structural damage from a falling skyscraper like building 7" and you might get somewhere.
0
Reply
Male 341
daegog Here's some help:
List of collapsed buildings and list of skyscraper fires.
Plasco Building: The building collapsed on 19 January 2017 during a skyscraper fire.
0
Reply
Male 3,497
boredhuman the plasco building of the video you linked was blown up tho, that wasn't just a fire.
-1
Reply
Male 341
daegog Says who? The amateur architects at ae911truth, the Iranian firefighters whose co-workers died, or the official report
-1
Reply
Male 1,798
boredhuman Your evidence doesn't support their conspiracy, so they won't accept it.
0
Reply
Male 5,028
daegog That is because demolitions of skyscrapers in densely built areas is not allowed. Skyscrapers have to be dismantled manually from top to bottom. Notice how none of the 9/11 Truthers talk about buildings 3, 4 and 6 which were completely destroyed in the fall of the two towers.

Update: Sorry daegog I just noticed that I strayed from your question. I didn't do that on purpose. I stumbled on this picture and was distracted by all the damage the collapse caused. In the shock of it all I forgot what your original question was.

0
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 Don't you find it interesting that 6 remained standing, so did 5, but 7 is even worse than 6?  Clearly a dead giveaway of something happening in 7 that wasn't strong enough to happen to 6.
-2
Reply
Male 5,028
monkwarrior What I find interesting is after seeing the absolute destruction in this picture you still have doubts about building 7 collapsing from anything except the debris from the towers collapsing and the fires that burned all day.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 Actually i find it interesting, that you think 7 collapses due to debris, when 5 and 6 still had standing pieces.  Clearly you have your head in the sand. But it's no surprise, because the University of Alaska Fairbanks found that it wasn't fire that brought down those buildings, as your 'official report' claims.

That's right, the 'official report' didn't say it was debris as a lot of biased 'debunkers' like to preach, they said "fire".  Fire doesn't bring a 47 story steel structure down in its own footprint like that without damaging the buildings right beside it, nor would 'debris' do the same.  That takes controlled demos.
-3
Reply
Male 5,028
monkwarrior I'm jumping off this thread. I can't handle your stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 good, yours was pretty annoying anyway.  Head in the sand-ists often are though.
-2
Reply
Male 3,497
markust123 If you start at a premise that perhaps 9/11 wasn't legit, then the notion that a thing being allowed or not is kinda amusing yes?
0
Reply
Male 5,028
daegog I guess it could to someone that believes the conspiracy. You seem like a level headed guy. How come you're getting wrapped up in all this? I don't get it.
-1
Reply
Male 3,497
markust123 Mostly over building 7.. it seems too incredulous for me to just pass off as fire damage.  

Now if building 7 was in fact a controlled demolition then this whole thing has to be looked at with more scrutiny.

If i could ever find a realistic way to quiet my building 7 issues, i would be more inclined to ignore the whole thing.
-1
Reply
Male 5,028
daegog There were cameras everywhere. Why would they risk getting caught secretly bringing building 7 down with explosives? Buildings 1-4 were destroyed beyond recognition. And it's a miracle that building 6 was even standing with all the damage it sustained. Why would these five buildings not be enough? It makes no sense to purposely bring down building 7 hours later. 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 maybe because of what it held?  Incriminating evidence gone *poof*, and criminals in high office go scot free
0
Reply
Male 3,425
chewbacca taco
0
Reply
Male 3,447
-1
Reply
Male 341
This is getting desperate, monkwarrior.

Here, I'll help. If you want to "seek the truth," then go to 911research. Even they find lots of flaws in their loose change critique.

Otherwise go read about the official story of 9/11 and the official reports...
With 9/11 approaching, how about we respect the people who died instead of implying some of them didn't exist in the first place.

Tell the families of the victims at the Pentagon that it was a missile: 
Crew: Charles Burlingame David M. Charlebois Michele Heidenberger Jennifer Lewis Kenneth Lewis Renee A. May 
Passengers: Paul Ambrose Yeneneh Betru Mary Jane (MJ) Booth Bernard Curtis Brown Suzanne Calley William Caswell Sarah Clark Zandra Cooper Asia Cottom James Debeuneure Rodney Dickens Eddie Dillard Charles Droz Barbara G. Edwards Charles S. Falkenberg Zoe Falkenberg Dana Falkenberg James Joe Ferguson Wilson 'Bud' Flagg Darlene Flagg Richard Gabriel Ian J. Gray Stanley Hall Bryan Jack Steven D. Jacoby Ann Judge Chandler Keller Yvonne Kennedy Norma Khan Karen A. Kincaid Dong Lee Dora Menchaca Christopher Newton Barbara Olson Ruben Ornedo Robert Penniger Robert R. Ploger Lisa J. Raines Todd Reuben John Sammartino Diane Simmons George Simmons Mari-Rae Sopper Robert Speisman Norma Lang Steuerle Hilda E. Taylor Leonard Taylor Sandra Teague Leslie A. Whittington John D. Yamnicky Vicki Yancey Shuyin Yang Yuguag Zheng

0
Reply
Male 5,476
boredhuman I'll admit this isn't as through and in depth as part 1, part 2, and part 3 of the "50 questions they cant answer about 9/11" series here on I-A-B.  That has a wealth of information, but this video had a recent HD update and was posted 5 days ago, which is the main reason i posted it.
-2
Reply
Male 341
monkwarrior Do you realize that, if 9/11 conspiracy were true, posting bad evidence hurts exposing it? 

-1
Reply
Male 5,476
boredhuman I simply posted a video because it was updated in HD.  Personally i prefer "Explosive Evidence:Experts Speak Out", or the in depth series "50 questions they can't answer about 9/11" here on I-A-B ( part 1, part 2, and part 3 ).
-1
Reply
Male 341
monkwarrior So, you're OK with posting shitty evidence and label it "stunning analysis", as long as it supports your point? 

Loose change critiques:
00:12:02 "This slide is played for more than 40 seconds, apparently for dramatic emphasis. Evidence for the missile theory? -- Hardly. A jetliner used as a weapon is often referred to as a missile. Alternatively, Rumsfeld's remark may have been calculated to seed the no-plane hoax."

00:13:24 Its final approach took it directly across Interstate 395, knocking light poles out of the ground and bouncing off the lawn before impact. Although a few of the numerous eyewitness reports suggest that a portion of the plane hit the ground before impact, neither the official story nor the crash evidence support the idea that the plane "bounced off the lawn" before impact. Loose Change attacks this straw man argument repeatedly as if it's a key underpinning of the account of Flight 77's crash.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
boredhuman The first paragraph was a direct copy from the video page, i added the 2nd paragraph.
-2
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior find a hole you havent used yet and blow it out of it
-1
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham there there, emotional troll is emotional.
-2
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior corn on the cob
0
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham thanks for filling the 'troll' checklist
-3
Reply
Male 3,447
0
Reply
Male 2,637
When evidence is truly compelling, it doesn't need an anniversary for what comes across as shameless marketing.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
jaysingrimm You're right, that's why people have been examining the evidence intensely and finding out more and more every month since it happened.  They're finding out that the 'official report' was wrong, that fire didn't bring down wtc7 as was claimed, and that the evidence for a re-investigation is not only compelling, but mounting.

Though people who have their head in the sand, after blindly accepting what the media told them, rather than following where the science goes, will never want to learn.  The media has told them to mock and deride those who bring up inconvenient truths against its narrative, especially so surrounding 9/11.
-2
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, you have YOUR head in the sand, and blindly accept what a few questionable websites tell you, rather than following science, plus decades of fire science research. I have answered to all of your fallacious bullshit many times, and you continue to fail to provide the "evidence" you continue to speak of, while continuing to ignore the real science. JUST BECAUSE YOU FOUND IT ON A WEBSITE, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. You really, really, REALLY need to educate yourself on fire science and metallurgy. In fact, don't post anything else about 9/11 until you do. Doing so will prove how much of a troll you really are.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Correction: you have your head in the sand, blindly accepting what the media told you as fact, too afraid to question it because you fear the ridicule that the media preaches people like you to spit at those who question its delusions.  Remember, just because the media preached it to you and many people around you agreed with what the media preached, doesn't make i true.  In fact, science has found explosives were used to bring down those buildings, and that the 'official report' is wrong (as recently found by the university of Alaska Fairbanks), but no, you won't listen to that will you?  You just want to listen to what the media said that tickles your ears, so you can spit your hate like they tell you to. 

Also since i never asked anything of you,and you simply have trolled out of the fragility of your world-view, why don't you educate yourself rather than listening to the crowd or the media.  Otherwise, keep trolling and acting like a lemming while sticking your head in the stand, just like your media preaches at you to do.

Don't question them comrade, eat their delusions, and like it!

ha ha ha!
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I'M NOT GOING BY WHAT THE MEDIA REPORTED. I'M GOING BY DECADES OF FIRE SCIENCE RESEARCH, AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE! What part of this is confusing to you? 
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior As usual, you totally ignored what I said. I AM NOT BASING THINGS ON THE MEDIA, OR WHAT EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVES. I AM BASING IT ON EDUCATION (which you seem to lack), AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! How does your silly video about "cognitive dissonance" cover that? HOW!!?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat so let me guess, you ignored the video that explained your cognitive dissonance?  Figures.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Learn English, or don't bother talking to me.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat if it bothers you so much that i reply, perhaps you shouldn't be an emotional troll?

0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Yes, I know that you are even trying to troll my emotions. It must infuriate you that you have failed so utterly.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat trolling won't get you anywhere. it does you no good.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, it certainly doesn't do you any good. When will you realize that? Oh, thats right, you, as a troll, don't care. Thats why you refuse to even TRY to answer my simple questions about your stupid conspiracy theories.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat The problem is that you cling fast to the 'official report' when it's been shown to be a fabrication and calls for a re-investigation are being made. Even your own fellow firefighters know that it's a fabrication and are speaking up to push for a re-investigation.  So keep trolling, it does you no good.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior So tell me what explosives were used to bring down the WTC.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat You've been told several times now that a re-investigation could determine what, precisely, explosives were used to bring them down.  The explosions were witnessed by many first responders, but ignored by the 'official report', and there's also evidence of them being scrubbed from media reports.  

Your continued ignorance of the many times i've answered your question, snows your trolling and ignorant nature.  Quite a shame you have deluded yourself against the facts.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior YOU are the one who keeps talking about explosives as if there are a DEFINITE CERTAINTY, not as if they were a POSSIBILITY. How can you be so very certain there were explosives, without evidence? The "explosions" were "witnessed by" many first responders? By "witnessed", I believe you mean "heard". It must be that most of the structure fires I've personally been to (keep in mind that I am a firefighter) also involved explosives, as I've heard "explosions" at quite a number of them. Never mind the fact that these "explosions" were caused by the "normal" contents of the structures....

Quite a shame that you aren't intelligent enough to listen to someone with first-hand experience.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat I'm simply saying that the 'official report' has been proven wrong, and a re-investigation is warranted and needed, as there has been explosive evidence found, and scientists found that wtc7 did not collapse due to fire.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Yes, I know you keep saying that. What you won't say is WHAT EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE? WHAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED? If there is "explosive evidence", then what is it?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Oh i've said it many times, the problem is that you have ignored it many times. 

For the explosive evidence: You have the "Explosive Evidence:Experts Speak Out" that explores it in depth, not to mention the "Oral histories of 9/11" that shows many first responders reported explosives, and there is also the explosive evidence examined in the series "50 questions they can't answer about 9/11" here on I-A-B ( part 1, part 2, and part 3 ). 

As for what explosives, that's what a re-investigation could find out.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Then stop asserting as FACT that explosives WERE used, until you can come up with some ACTUAL evidence. You have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to back up your claims.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Oh, i'm not going to stop pointing to the fact that explosive evidence was found at the 9/11 crime scene, just because it dents your fragile world view, and you want to ignore it until the media tells you it's a fact. 

There is plenty of evidence, as mentioned, which i'll repeat again for the sake of your ignorance:  You have the "Explosive Evidence:Experts Speak Out" that explores it in depth, not to mention the "Oral histories of 9/11" that shows many first responders reported explosives, and there is also the explosive evidence examined in the series "50 questions they can't answer about 9/11" here on I-A-B ( part 1, part 2, and part 3 ).


0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior If there were "explosive evidence", then that evidence would point to WHAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED! Since there is that absolute, incontrovertible evidence, why won't you tell me WHAT KINDS WERE USED? Oh, that's right, because it DOESN'T EXIST, and you aren't intelligent enough to realize it. I'm done feeding the troll now. Fuck off.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat You've still ignored what i've said, that "what kinds of explosives were used" is a question a more in-depth re-investigation would find out (which is needed since the 'official report' is flawed). But explosive evidence has been found, and you're simply ignoring it because the facts inconvenience your fragile world view.  Now you're butt hurt over the facts, and choosing to judge like trollish bully who doesn't get their way.  You've dug your own hole, I'm glad you realize your ignorance gets you nowhere and choose to stop. Maybe when you get over your fragile world view you won't be so emotional, and may be actually civil, sensible, and in control again.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Do you hear the bullshit coming out of your own mouth? There is evidence, but there isn't? Thats what you are saying, and it just exposes your WILLFUL ignorance. Fuck off.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Projecting yourself on me won't help.  But maybe next time you are all emotional you'll think twice before replying?
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Not particularly emotional, except for being very tired of all your lies and bullshit. You keep refusing to answer my questions, but I'm projecting? Thats really rich. Just fuck off already. Troll.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat well maybe you will think twice, but now i doubt it.  Your nature is laid bare, it's why you are so emotional now. Still, there's always hope.
0
Reply
Male 5,028
We're getting a little too close to the actual day to be posting this 9/11 conspiracy bullshit. It's disrespectful to the victims of this horrific event and to the rescue workers who died later due to respiratory issues.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 Personally, i find it to be more disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 by remembering a lie about the circumstances of their death, rather than seek and honor them by understanding the truth about circumstances surrounding their deaths (no matter how hard it may be for the living to come to terms with).

The media has been pushing lies on the people in your nation for quite some time now, but those outside your nation aren't so quick to blindly believe their lies, especially when the hard facts expose the lies the media pushed.  We owe it to those who died to make sure the truth, and not a lie, is known.
-2
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior wow you got a 9/11 fetish.. 
-1
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham there, there, emotional troll is emotional.
-3
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior cheddar melt
0
Reply
Male 3,447
rumham



IDK which one is better...I'm just trying to stimulate those munchies :)
-1
Reply
Male 3,447
-1
Reply
Male 3,497
markust123 I dunno, that's perhaps backwards.  I would think people would want the truth on 9/11 more.

Now im not saying that that this film represents the truth, but it is, in SOMEWAY an attempt to seek the truth, and i think that counts for something.
-1
Reply
Male 5,028
daegog 9/11 Truthers don't attempt to seek the truth. They ignore every fact that disproves their conspiracies. They ignore the 45 eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly into the pentagon. They ignore that there was not one eyewitnesses who said they saw a missile flying toward the Pentagon. They ignore the fact that there is no way the explosives needed to take down the two main towers, in the exact location they fell, would have been able to survive the initial impact and subsequent fires. They ignore that the huge amount of explosives and wires needed to take down the buildings were not seen by anyone. They ignore the incredible coincidence of being able to place these supposed explosives in the exact location where the planes hit. They ignore that the large explosions needed to blow the main supports would have shot debris, smoke and flame from the buildings before it starts to fall, yet there was nothing like this seen. They ignore the tremendous amount of damage the planes would have caused to the buildings support structure. They ignore the tremendous amount of damage building 7 received from the debris falling onto it and into it from the two tower collapses. But most of all they ignore how impossible it would be to keep a plan and execution of something of this magnitude a secret. The guilt alone of knowing they helped kill their fellow citizens would cause someone to confess. It's human nature.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 you've got that wrong son, let me fix it for you:

9/11 deniers don't attempt to seek the truth. They ignore every fact that disproves their 'official report'. They ignore the +500 first responder eyewitnesses who saw and hear explosions. They ignore the fact that explosives were needed to take down the two main towers since the plane and any office/jet-fuel fuled fires would not have affected structures several floors below the impact.  They ignore that there were clear demolition cuts and thermite found in the debris. They make up tall tales of how the buildings 'should' have acted, when many demolitions show they fell just like demolished buildings.  But most of all they claim ignorance that people would plan and pull this off.  Instead opting to use fallacies to assume that no one could, when the most evil person paid millions of dollars would easily be willing to kill and keep it secret, since psychopaths know how to ignore their guilt and stick to a plan that keeps them out of the investigation.  Someone not only doesn't know demolitions, but does not know the darkest levels of human nature, which even our history has shown us is possible. 

It's time for those who have been lulled into a lie by the media to wake up, realize that time, and time again their official report and fallacious questions have been shown to not be evidence.  The real evidence points to it being demolitions, and that people can be extremely evil.

Follow the science, not the crowd:

-1
Reply
Male 341
daegog If you're gonna seek the truth, do it right! If you have doubts about the official story of 9/11, don't bring bad evidence which is dismissed even by 9/11 truthers

You don't get an "A" for effort in seeking truth. 
-1
Reply
Male 3,497
boredhuman And what about the rebuttals to those dismissals?
-1
Reply
Male 341
daegog You evaluate rebuttals just like you would any evidence/argument. 

What are you saying? I'm saying 9/11 truthers dismiss parts of the loose change video. Are you saying loose change has rebuttals? How about you'll be more specific? 
-1
Reply
Male 3,497
boredhuman Would it honestly matter?
-1
Reply
Male 341
daegog Yes - quality of evidence honestly matters to me.
Apparently it does NOT matter to monkwarrior as he's willing to present evidence that he knows is no good. 
Does quality of evidence matter to YOU?
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
@ Fancylad - is 9/11 a persona fetish of yours ?
I think we've had quite enough of it
-1
Reply
Male 3,425
Gerry1of1 shit you beat me to the 9/11 fetish comment :P
0
Reply
Male 39,958
rumham Just let me get my whip and I'll beat you to any fetish you like
-1
Reply
Male 3,425
Gerry1of1 uhh i'll make my "tower" an "inside job" if you get my theory, too much?? shit... make you squeal like a sheeple
0
Reply
Male 39,958
rumham "inside".... no problem. I can do that. But I use condoms
-1
Reply
Male 45
Stunning is the amount of "information" they made up; e.g. the speed at which the towers fell. Their timer started after the tower began to fall and stopped as the camera lost sight of it behind other skyscrapers. (though that may have been from the original) 
-1
Reply