Conquer Club

I'm shure most of you have watched the 3 part video LOOSE CHANGE (if not it is on youtube). im curious to know how many people don't belief it.

A link is always helpful.

Always...




-X

It's not fact or fiction, but the claims are mostly bogus. Basically, the guys went through a million pieces of information and only presented the hundred or so that corroborated their initial hypothesis.

Loose change on youtube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CDx1GLqvBO8

The highly amusing rebuttal from maddox:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

There is a brilliant Southpark episode though that makes the amazing claim that loos change is a government conspiracy made to make the government look more competent.

I am mostly with Incandenza on this one (except for the Maddox part. f*ck Maddox).

While I think they cherry pick their evidence and arguments for both sides is lacking, I still wouldn't put it past the government to do something like this.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am mostly with Incandenza on this one (except for the Maddox part. f*ck Maddox).

While I think they cherry pick their evidence and arguments for both sides is lacking, I still wouldn't put it past the government to do something like this.

They aren't THAT corrupt.

unriggable wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am mostly with Incandenza on this one (except for the Maddox part. f*ck Maddox).

While I think they cherry pick their evidence and arguments for both sides is lacking, I still wouldn't put it past the government to do something like this.

They aren't THAT corrupt.

Clearly you've never heard of Operation Gladio or Operation Ajax.

Total fiction...here is a link to a site that debunks everything stated as "fact" in the movie. It's a good read.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

It's a fact that it is fiction.

Yeah, the government just goes and downs a fucken building for a couple bucks get real

sorry i forgot to post a link,


part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx1GLqvBO8

part 2
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=wJZlZP0vbCE
[/url]
part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J7ipvgBLGc&mode=related&search=

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am mostly with Incandenza on this one (except for the Maddox part. f*ck Maddox).

While I think they cherry pick their evidence and arguments for both sides is lacking, I still wouldn't put it past the government to do something like this.

They aren't THAT corrupt.

Clearly you've never heard of Operation Gladio or Operation Ajax.

Yes but those didnt involve multi-billion (I assume they cost that much in the 60's) dollar structure being toppled.

i believe there was a television programme in the UK about this a couple of weeks ago and it seemed to explain everything scientifically. However i do think the US government are corrupt but not to this extent.

unriggable wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am mostly with Incandenza on this one (except for the Maddox part. f*ck Maddox).

While I think they cherry pick their evidence and arguments for both sides is lacking, I still wouldn't put it past the government to do something like this.

They aren't THAT corrupt.

Clearly you've never heard of Operation Gladio or Operation Ajax.

Yes but those didnt involve multi-billion (I assume they cost that much in the 60's) dollar structure being toppled.

It involved the murders and bombing of civilians and civilian gathering places in order to create and use the strategy of tension, not much different from 9/11.

And money has little relevance here. You're thinking too narrowly, that the government is only after fiscal gain. You also suppose (illogically) that they cannot recover or profit if they lose money.

Alternatively, what worry is the economy or collateral funds if you can create a statist stranglehold by manipulating the fears of the people, which would have more inherent value?

I've not watched the "Loose change" video myself but I'm aware of multiple conspiracy theories around 9/11.
I'd just like to correct one of the recurring ones I've heard and read stating that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand high temperatures and that the construction wouldn't allow the spread of the fire so rapidly between floors and the steel frame should not have collapsed.
One of my fields of expertise (at work) is asbestos and I know for a fact that that these claims are presented with skewed evidence. The original building specification was designed to withstand large temperature fire damage without spreading from floor to floor, but this specification changed (was lowered) in the late 90s when the sprayed asbestos insulation coating on the steel beams was removed and replace by a non asbestos (inferior insulating) product, due to health concerns. This significantly reduced the fire proofing of the beams in particular leading partially to the unexpected results of the rapid spread of the fire and the weakening of the construction.
Boring I know, but if I can prove one part of the theory wrong with my own professional knowledge I'm certain others can debunk the other extravagant claims.

keiths31 wrote:Total fiction...here is a link to a site that debunks everything stated as "fact" in the movie. It's a good read.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Actually, there is a site out there that rips this one to shreds. It calls it out on all of its logical fallacies, blatant inaccuracies, etc.

Give me some time to find it.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

unriggable wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am mostly with Incandenza on this one (except for the Maddox part. f*ck Maddox).

While I think they cherry pick their evidence and arguments for both sides is lacking, I still wouldn't put it past the government to do something like this.

They aren't THAT corrupt.

Clearly you've never heard of Operation Gladio or Operation Ajax.

Yes but those didnt involve multi-billion (I assume they cost that much in the 60's) dollar structure being toppled.

It involved the murders and bombing of civilians and civilian gathering places in order to create and use the strategy of tension, not much different from 9/11.

And money has little relevance here. You're thinking too narrowly, that the government is only after fiscal gain. You also suppose (illogically) that they cannot recover or profit if they lose money.

Alternatively, what worry is the economy or collateral funds if you can create a statist stranglehold by manipulating the fears of the people, which would have more inherent value?

No I understand that the government is not only after money, they are also after obedience, but I just have trouble believing that theyd do something like that.

Well you are going to believe what you want to believe. "Facts" are put out there and it is up to the individual to decide what they want to accept as "fact". I, for one, accept the "facts" as stated that it was bin Laden and his cronies. No amount of "Loose Change" or videos like minded will change my outlook on that.

And why would they change anyone's mind?

everywhere116 wrote:And why would they change anyone's mind?

The question is: why the hell arent they dead yet?

That was an arguement that one of the links used.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Clearly you've never heard of Operation Gladio or Operation Ajax.

OMG I remember seeing a movie about the ratlines with Michael Caine playing the fleeing Nazi I think, I forget what it was called. Really shocking portrayal of what happened.