Skip

Loose Change
November 11, 2005 12:35 AM   Subscribe

Loose change A one hour analysis of 9/11 and how it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks. A documentary analyzing the footage and presenting an alternative view to the official version.
posted by zeerobots (115 comments total)

 
An hour?!? Shit, I'm not going to sit for an hour to try and debunk some crackpot bullshit.

Give me the crazy in three minutes. C'mon.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:58 AM on November 11, 2005


Please see; also see.
posted by blendor at 1:01 AM on November 11, 2005



posted by quarsan at 1:13 AM on November 11, 2005


do we need these fruitbat posts?
posted by quarsan at 1:13 AM on November 11, 2005


It's that time of the year again.
posted by uncle harold at 1:16 AM on November 11, 2005


I find a colander is more effective at filtering out both the 1800 and 850 MHz mind control beams. Tinfoil suffers from weak signal impedance in the high frequency range.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:16 AM on November 11, 2005


*
posted by mullingitover at 1:20 AM on November 11, 2005


MULLINGITOVER DECIEVES YOU
Tinfoil will not stop 1800 and 1900MHz GSM Band mind control signal!
Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa engineered 9/11 from their secret base on Saturn
posted by [expletive deleted] at 1:25 AM on November 11, 2005


Why do you think The Man stopped making "tinfoil" out of tin?
posted by nightchrome at 1:27 AM on November 11, 2005


I'm sorry, but what kind of credentials does this guy have to perform forensics on the various footage presented ? His conjecture is based, solely it seems, on presupposed evidence which has sort of been "transposed" (though that's not the word I'm really looking for) onto the 9/11 stuff.

Absolutely arse.
posted by shoez at 1:27 AM on November 11, 2005


Was this a high school project? I bailed out at 1min 40secs.
posted by brautigan at 1:30 AM on November 11, 2005


Thanks for the video, Karl Rove.

This is just plain lunacy (though some of the images of 9/11 in the first 7 minutes of te movie are worth seeing, if you watch this without sound). Otherwise, don't bother.

Now it does turn out that the US government is not, in fact, above planning domestic terrorist attacks against its own people to justify war:
Operation Northwoods ... was the code name for various false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba,"

SOURCE: Wikipedia
That being said, however, this video only offers a long string of tenuous (at best) "seems to me" observations, few of which make any real sense.

For example, the video starts by showing what appears to be a bright flash before the planes impact the building. The suggestion is that explosives were planted inside one or both of the WTC towers and detonated a milisecond before the planes impact. Not only that, but the pilots were able to fly their planes exactly into the right window where the explosives were located. Oh yes, and the video also argues that one of the planes fired a missile at the WTC a milisecond before impact.

Obviously there's no point in firing a tiny missile into a building a second before a huge guided missile (the plane) is about to hit the target. Obviously there's no reason to plant explosives in a building when you're flying a plane into the building that is loaded with explosives (jet fuel). Obviously it would be impossible to coordinate the timing and positioning of any building explosives with the plane's impact... and so on.

There's enough real world reasons to criticize the government with regard to these attacks without making up crazy nonsense like this.

Here's a better conspiracy theory for you: crazy videos like these are put out by neo-cons to discredit legitimate criticisms of the government's response to pre-9/11 intelligence information.
posted by Davenhill at 1:34 AM on November 11, 2005


my god...

some of you actually watched this tripe?
posted by quarsan at 1:53 AM on November 11, 2005


I'll try to summarize some of the director's points that I could remember:

• Debris found at the Pentagon attack site matches with components in a Tomahawk, but does not match Boeing 737

• Private security footage from surrounding area was confiscated post-attack by the FBI

• The size of the impact hole in the Pentagon matches the size of a cruise missile or plane fuselage, but no wing or tail fin impacts are found on the outside of the building

• Titanium engine parts cannot melt in burning kerosene, yet no titanium components are found in debris

• Firefighters at the WTC heard multiple explosions on low-numbered and basement floors before the towers collapsed

• Shock waves from said explosions apparently knocked out first-floor glass fixtures and marble walls in buildings before the towers collapsed

• Several unscheduled and extraordinary "safety drills" pulled WTC workers out of the buildings some months before 9/11, causing power outages to security and TV monitoring systems

• Multiple eyewitnesses corroborate on witnessing two military planes fly low above the crash site in western Pennsylvania, which is denied by government officials

• Cell phone logs indicate most cell phone calls from flight victims took place at cruising altitude. Ad hoc evidence is presented showing a low success rate (0.6%) for cell phone usage at this altitude.

• Hijacker passport used for identification of perpetrators survives the WTC impact but redundant flight recorders do not in both impacts

Whether there is or is not a conspiracy, I personally agree that the 9/11 Commission was a joke, weakened to the point of inefficacy.

Had it been given any power to do its job, and had it been run by parties who would have the courage to pursue answers, much of this speculation would be disproved from the start. Further, if the government had addressed questions in a truthful and open manner, it would be harder to present speculation as compelling truth.

I'll agree with Metafilter's conspiracy theory that this is probably the work of the GOP and/or Karl Rove and friends. They ultimately benefit from the uncertainty raised in any conspiracy theory, since it distracts people from more important issues like, say, the Vietnam-like situation in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, massive oil profiteering, Halliburton scandals, Plamegate, torture, etc. etc.
posted by Rothko at 2:19 AM on November 11, 2005


OMG He mentioned torture!
posted by Joeforking at 2:44 AM on November 11, 2005


not a 9-11 expert - heard there was a controversy about it - never really took it seriously or investigated it much due to much of it being based on video or photo analysis which can be interpreted many ways.

But there were a few things in this documentary that are definitely fishy.

The firefighter reports are among the most damning, imo.

Then again, this is the first comprehensive look I've taken which deals with the conspiracy side. I'd prefer to suspend judgement until hearing the other side address the most damning points.
posted by spacediver at 2:45 AM on November 11, 2005


From Wiki:

Occam's Razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."

It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because it requires fewer assumptions. Some people have oversimplified Occam's Razor as "The simplest explanation is the best (or true) one".

posted by elpapacito at 2:51 AM on November 11, 2005


"Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
posted by Rothko at 2:57 AM on November 11, 2005


Metafilter: As simple as possible, but no simpler
posted by armage at 3:13 AM on November 11, 2005


Just finished watching it. There are weak moments, but the one part that really got me was seeing the slow-motion collapses, where it explosions were shooting out 10 floors below the wake of the collapse. That, and the "shaking tripod" 9 seconds before the start of the collapse. Are there any "mainstream" explanations for these events?
posted by knave at 3:38 AM on November 11, 2005


MetaFilter: Baa Baaa Baaaaaaa
posted by felix betachat at 3:42 AM on November 11, 2005


I didn't watch the link. This guy may be an amateur and a tinfoil asshat, and some of his conclusions are probably wrong, but the points that Rothko mentions above indicate that the film maker has stumbled on many of the troubling inconsistencies about the 9/11 incident.

Most people, for example, don't realize that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed unexpectedly that day. WTC7 was not hit by an airliner or major debris and only minor fires were seen burning on a few floors, yet it neatly fell at near free fall speeds straight into its own footprint. No steel framed hi-rise building has ever done this before or since, yet the 911 commission has no definitive answer why this happened. Compare the WTC7 fire to a fire in a similarly constructed building in Madrid that burned for 10 hours but didn't fall.

If it wasn't damaged badly enough to fall by itself and yet it fell with controlled demolition exactness at controlled demolition speed, Occam's Razor would lead to the conclusion that it was brought down by controlled demolition, which the controller of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, inadvertently stated on a PBS documentary. And if that is the case, how were the explosives set so quickly?

If the "facts" of 9/11 were the plot of a bad "B" movie, viewers would walk out of theaters in disgust. Yet most Americans blithely swallow Bush and Company's version of how things went down, because the alternative is too unthinkable. Please remember that these are the same folks that sold their Iraqi war (that they had wanted since 1997) on known bogus data, and we all know how well that is turning out.

Too many things stink about the "official" explanation of 9/11, and no amount of condescending cries of "Tinfoil Hat!" will make it smell better.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
-PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses", June 3,1997

posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:15 AM on November 11, 2005


"What if the twin towers were not hit by commercial airliners?"

How can you even suppose that? What about all the witnesses? It's the same thing with the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory: then where did all the people on those "supposed" planes go? Some hidden fortress where they've been brainswashed and held captive since 9/11?

There isn't enough tinfoil in the world...
posted by grey_flap at 4:18 AM on November 11, 2005


three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
posted by Larzarus at 4:43 AM on November 11, 2005


If the planes weren't hijacked and flown into their targets, there would have been no reason for the military to shoot down the one plane and make up that pathetic "Let's roll!" story. Which it obviously did.

And if the government didn't make it up, somebody affilliated with the Hallmark Hall of Fame did. I understand why the plane was shot down. I don't understand why the government couldn't just say "we had to bring it down in an unpopulated area to save lives on the ground."
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:44 AM on November 11, 2005


somewhat related
posted by Substrata at 4:47 AM on November 11, 2005


I would totally be in agreement with the conspiracy theory except for one thing--the competence of our government. I just cannot believe that they could get things to mesh that well and have a false story stick for years like this.

That, to me, is the one point in this theory that is suspect.
posted by leftcoastbob at 5:08 AM on November 11, 2005


Okay, here's the largest and first refutation that comes to my mind: If the government can rid the world of 4 planefuls of passenger jets, why can't they eliminate the tin-foil hat makers of this video?

Slipping, guys...

That said, my eyewitness account of the second plane's impact was of a cargo plane, not a United jet. (the grey color threw me, and the plane was showing it's belly to Brooklyn as it hit.

But I didn't follow the links.
Not at work. Probably not at home, for that matter.
posted by Busithoth at 5:13 AM on November 11, 2005


I just cannot believe that they could get things to mesh that well and have a false story stick for years like this.

The military and CIA are, in general, fairly competent organizations. It's when you bring the bureaucracy in that it gets all muddled.

If the government can rid the world of 4 planefuls of passenger jets, why can't they eliminate the tin-foil hat makers of this video?

Because it would draw attention to and lend possible credence to their theories.
posted by fatbobsmith at 5:19 AM on November 11, 2005


Batshitinsane. That said, there's a lot to think about in the guy's points.

/please
posted by OmieWise at 5:32 AM on November 11, 2005


Next to the work of Alex Jones, this is ranks up against the best of documentaries in the 9/11 Truth Movement

Alex Jones? [snicker]

Written and Directed by Dylan Avery

1 hour long.

Jesus. One hour?

Take the Red Pill

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGH SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU RETARD

Dedicated to the people who died on September 11th

I HOPE YOU ROT IN HELL YOU SICK FUCKADGHHREIBAAREGFBAASDGAANTNNFCG
posted by fungible at 5:32 AM on November 11, 2005


fatbobsmith, I meant before it was released. and really, a car off a bridge, destroyed in a SUV high-speed impact, how much attention do you think that would foster?

the pentagon impact still irks me, though.
especially since it was exactly what terror experts and wonks were yelling would need to happen to make the pentagon take terrorism seriously.

careful what you wish for, I suppose.
posted by Busithoth at 5:32 AM on November 11, 2005


Tinfoil suffers from weak signal impedance in the high frequency range.

That's why you need the saran wrap -- it makes a capactior with the foil, allowing you to tune your helmet.

except for one thing--the competence of our government.

Leftcoastbob nails it. The core tenent of the theory is the supracompetence of the Bush Administration.

WTC7 was not hit by an airliner or major debris

Wrong. WTC7 was pummled by debris from the fall of WTC1 -- all on one side, esp on the lowest floors, and the foundation was compromised by the debris pile from the towers. The fires raged unchecked, since at first, they were trying to get to the towers, later, after the towers had fallen, they couldn't get real firefighting equipment onsite. Worse, the fires were burning on the low floors, where the structure had to hold up the greatest load.

The real question isn't "Why did WTC7 fall?" The real question is "Why *didn't* 1WFC and 2WFC also fall?" They had much of the same damage.

Answer: Fire.

Fire kills tall buildings, and the more mass above the fire, the faster it happens. But, in modern skyscrapers, floor soaking long term fires are very rare. We've had fires, sure -- but most of them were controlled very quickly.

In the case of One, Two and Seven World Trade Center, New York, they weren't. In all three cases, floor-wide fires raged for at least an hour, and in first two cases, they were fed by massive amounts of Jet-A fuel. In WTC7's case, a frame damaged by impacts, a fire, and a complete loss of all fire supression -- no water to sprinklers, no water to firefighters, hell, no firefighters, either dead or trying to escape the fall of the towers -- meant that it was doomed.
posted by eriko at 5:35 AM on November 11, 2005


There are weak moments, but the one part that really got me was seeing the slow-motion collapses, where it explosions were shooting out 10 floors below the wake of the collapse.

Ever squeeze an accordian?

Yes, there were blowouts as the building pancaked. You had many tons of mass falling, floor by floor, pushing down into a sealed building. The air pressure was tremendous -- indeed, if there was any Jet-A vapor there, it might have ignited (see "diesel cycle".)

When you implode a building, you take out the windows, to make sure there's enough room for the air to get out of the way.
posted by eriko at 5:40 AM on November 11, 2005


Humming bug... HUMBUG!

My usual reaction to this kind of conspiracy theory:

Immediate: Wow, that doesn't make sense.

Upon a little thought: No, that still doesn't make sense. And while our government *probably* wouldn't do that, I'm quite convinced that it *couldn't.* The more convoluted the conspiracy theory, the more ridiculously low the probability that it could have been pulled off in reality.

This kind of thing tends to either ignore physics or invoke it only when convenient... same thing with facts. And then there are details where one asks "How do you know that?" Well, it's simple... in many cases, somebody made them up.

I'm not going to take the time to watch the full video and try to refute it by point, because I don't have it, but others are making a good start on that.
posted by musicinmybrain at 5:51 AM on November 11, 2005


This post is still here?
posted by caddis at 6:07 AM on November 11, 2005


The new government would have had 8 months to plan, win support/secrecy, prepare and execute the plan.
Just 8 months to organise the secret murder of thousands of American civilians in broad daylight and in what is effectively the capital of the world.

It would be amazing if it were true, but I can't believe it. I know the expert old hands were there from Poppy Bush's tenure, but this isn't Space Cowboys and they didn't manage to pull off the impossible.

Enron Hubbard - I would have loved that film; it would have been truly epic. Of course, when it becomes a TV movie, it will be mawkish, scandalously mis-represented and reprehensibly acted.
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:14 AM on November 11, 2005


I just watched Loose Change last night. There's a lot of crazy stuff in there, crazy because of the "Why the hell would that be useful?" question that you have to ask as a result of their theories.

One of the main things they touch on first is the "missile" that was fired from one of the planes seconds before impacting with the tower.

Okay, fine - let's assume there was a missile attached to the jet, and that it was fired into the building. The obvious question is: What the hell is the point? Why would you even bother with such a plan? Missiles were created because people didn't want to fly into targets with their planes. If you're already going to fly into the target, why launch a missile? What's the point?

One of the other things that the movie points out is... several of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive and at work in everyday jobs? This point isn't even mentioned on the website, as far as I can tell - nor is it even explained further in the movie - so I have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Does anyone know?

Seems like this would be one of their, you know, bullet points, worth explaining in great detail, since the main problem with their "no planes" conspiracy theory is the obvious question; "What happened to all the people on the flights? Where are the planes?"
posted by odinsdream at 6:32 AM on November 11, 2005


* Note, though, that the movie has a great sound-track.
posted by odinsdream at 6:35 AM on November 11, 2005


several of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive and at work in everyday jobs?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well."
posted by prak at 6:37 AM on November 11, 2005


(I'll never buy the "lets roll!" hero story, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was shot down - I'd actually feel better.)
posted by odinsdream at 6:40 AM on November 11, 2005


This is just another in a long line of bullshit undeserving of serious discussion, but for those of you who disbelieve that a plane hit the Pentagon, maybe you can be the first to provide a plausible answer to these questions:

Where is American Airlines flight 77? Where is the Boeing 757? Where are these 64 people?
posted by pardonyou? at 6:40 AM on November 11, 2005


If the planes weren't hijacked and flown into their targets, there would have been no reason for the military to shoot down the one plane and make up that pathetic "Let's roll!" story. Which it obviously did.

I believe that the plane in PA was shot down. In addition to the planes seen circling overhead, my understanding is that there were parts of the plane discovered a mile or two in front of the place where the plane impacted.

Why would the government not admit to that when shooting the plane down was a reasonable action? Because the "let's roll" story was inspirational. Because it made people believe that citizens can fight terrorists themselves.

I love conspiracies (I have a VHS tape of some lunatic who claims that the driver shot Kennedy and points out the driver turning to Kennedy with what looks like something shiny in his hand at the moment Kennedy's head snaps back and brains go onto the car. He says that's why Jackie is trying to get out of the vehicle -- because the shooter is in the vehicle), but I don't believe for a moment that the government did this. Would they not have tied the damn thing to Iraq? Would they not have had the suspected perpetrators be of Iraqi descent? Why would they have the phony hijackers be almost exclusively from a country that is an ally to the US?
posted by flarbuse at 6:42 AM on November 11, 2005


Haven't we already been through this?
posted by afroblanca at 6:58 AM on November 11, 2005


Here we go again.
posted by jmccorm at 7:09 AM on November 11, 2005


I haven't watched this documentary. I used to watch these things, and I've seen all the arguments mentioned above. I stopped bothering with them because I realized that even if Bush gave a press conference tomorrow in which he declared that he had foreknowledge of the attacks, or even if Rove gave a press conference in which he declared that he masterminded it, very little would change. In the political climate as it is today, they would probably explain themselves by saying that it was necessary for national security and the populace would come out even madder at Arabs/Muslims for being such a threat to national security that Dear Leader had to do this. Presidential pardons all around, God bless the USA.
posted by leapingsheep at 7:09 AM on November 11, 2005


What is not a conspiracy theory is that the JCOS had plans to terrorize american citizens in order to scare the public in going to war against Cuba in the 1960s.

Check Operation Northwoods.

I personally don't think, and would like to not think the Bush Administration is capable of thinking up such things. Am I wrong to think this way? Maybe.
posted by j-urb at 7:48 AM on November 11, 2005


It's funny that this video is being largely dismissed as an unsupported conspiracy theory, and yet so many seem to accept the equally unsupported conspiracy theory that the plane over PA was shot down by our government. There is no real evidence for either. The PA conspiracy theory has one advantage, though: motive. We can accept shooting down a plane to save lives and infrastructure as a reasonable action within what we know to be human behavior. Killing thousands of our innocent countrymen, and severely damaging our own economy, seems to lay far outside of how we know people to act.

My point? Not sure I have one. The lack of empirical evidence doesn't seem to persuade people into believing conspiracy theories as much as the theory's coherence.
posted by Doug at 7:50 AM on November 11, 2005


Assuming 9/11 was self-inflicted, the thing that gets me is that all of these conspiracy videos focus on the "what." Nobody has bothered to logically lay out how that might've been accomplished, or who was involved. I mean if one really wanted to, one could probably even come up with a list of names after a while.

Assume the WTC collapse was controlled demolition, for instance. How many people actually know how to do that? Who are they, where were they? How much explosive material would that take, and where would you place it? Who was on security detail at the WTC in the days leading up to the attack?

I hate this crap, I really do. I know a guy who used to be a pretty good activist until he got ahold of all this stuff. Now I can't get him to do anything. "They'll never give up power that easily," is how he sees things now.
posted by halcyon_daze at 7:50 AM on November 11, 2005


but for those of you who disbelieve that a plane hit the Pentagon, maybe you can be the first to provide a plausible answer to these questions:

Where is American Airlines flight 77? Where is the Boeing 757? Where are these 64 people?


I don't buy any of these conspiracy theories but your questions do not a counter-argument make, pardonyou? If the conspiracy theory states that the government planned a cover story for the attack involving four commercial flights then it would be necessary to eliminate those four commercial flights. So the fact that they can't be produced doesn't mean they must have crashed into those buildings and in Penn. Sure, it's logistically improbable and the official story is much more likely but it's not a refutation of the conspiracy theory.
posted by effwerd at 7:53 AM on November 11, 2005


Sigh.
This is more for me to feel better than anyone else...

• Debris found at the Pentagon attack site matches with components in a Tomahawk, but does not match Boeing 737
Who's to say there weren't Tomahawk components on display at the Pentagon?

• Private security footage from surrounding area was confiscated post-attack by the FBI
Of course it was. They would want to review possible evidence

• The size of the impact hole in the Pentagon matches the size of a cruise missile or plane fuselage, but no wing or tail fin impacts are found on the outside of the building
The Pentagon was a reinforced structure, no? Perhaps the plane hit ground first, or struck at an angle?

• Titanium engine parts cannot melt in burning kerosene, yet no titanium components are found in debris
The workers could barely find an intact telephone, much less differentiate titanium bits from all the other metal scrap. Also, there were other flammables in an enclosed environment besides fuel involved - the fuel mainly accelerated the fire

• Firefighters at the WTC heard multiple explosions on low-numbered and basement floors before the towers collapsed
The accumulating pancake effect could certainly be expected to generate massive downward shockwaves

• Shock waves from said explosions apparently knocked out first-floor glass fixtures and marble walls in buildings before the towers collapsed
ditto

• Several unscheduled and extraordinary "safety drills" pulled WTC workers out of the buildings some months before 9/11, causing power outages to security and TV monitoring systems
meh

• Multiple eyewitnesses corroborate on witnessing two military planes fly low above the crash site in western Pennsylvania, which is denied by government officials
they were zeroing in on the flight before it crashed, no?

• Cell phone logs indicate most cell phone calls from flight victims took place at cruising altitude. Ad hoc evidence is presented showing a low success rate (0.6%) for cell phone usage at this altitude.
not absolute disproof - this is above one of the most densely populated parts of the U.S., so more cell towers

• Hijacker passport used for identification of perpetrators survives the WTC impact but redundant flight recorders do not in both impacts

Light items like paper blew out of the towers, heavier stuff like black boxes bolted into aircraft frames would not leave the building and become consumed by the heat.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:07 AM on November 11, 2005


effwerd, I didn't say it was an absolute refutation to the theory (of course, by your logic, a conspiracy theory is irrefutable). Conspiracy theories can only be attacked by tumbling the house of cards -- continuing to point out why the theory leads to absurd outcomes, and depends on absurd premises. The conspiracy theorist is trying to nitpick a few details and bootstrap them into some sort of pseudo-scientific evidence ("where's the wreckage of the plane?"). The anti-conspiracy theorist needs to raise some obvious questions, and seek answers. Thus, the question: "OK, if it was a missle, where is the plane?" To keep the theory intact, the conspiracy theory has to resort to increasingly bizarre and unbelievable explanations -- something along the lines of "Well, the government must have hidden it in Area 51, and killed all the passengers." This moves the theory from the merely ridiculous -- "I don't see any wreckage" -- to the absurd -- "they flew the plane somewhere else and nobody knows about it." Thereby making the whole theory even more suspect.

Or something like that.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:09 AM on November 11, 2005


What pardonyou said, or asked. Where did Flight 77 go? Hello, Barbara Olson, or.


* * *

...some excellent footage here. Especially the service truck being blown completely off the runway and into the water by an airliner firing up. (Around 20:07.)

Neither the kamikaze nor architects anticipated that structural failure of one floor due to heat would have a domino effect. My god. Imagine the boastful joy of Osama Bin Laden and Co. that day! But he nor any of the planners foresaw how exquisite slamming fully fueled jet airliners into the trade towers would be.

Complete utter collapse.

According to what I've learned, tall buildings have no where else to fall but straight down. They don't tip sideways.

And from the endless frame-by-frame I've seen, it's pure physics. Once one huge floor collapses it pancakes all the way down and quickly. And the starting point is the floor wherever the fully-fueled plane struck. The strong core
of the towers helps funnel the fall.

* * *

Implosive demolition usually starts from the bottom up, incidentally. cf. the film Koyaanisqatsi.

* * *

For me the point of contention remains: why did Al-Qaida, ie Osama Bin Laden, plan so hard and long for this?

Bin Laden said: because of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and the touchy-feely relation of the Royal Family with the Bushes.

A kiss.

So, 9/11 is a signal to look into the Bush family relationship to the Saudi Royal Family?

Madness, perhaps.

* * *

In closing: I watched the whole video. The premise is well presented but it's full of shit.

-r
posted by rmmcclay at 8:53 AM on November 11, 2005


of course, by your logic, a conspiracy theory is irrefutable

Not so. Theory has an assertion. Produce evidence that the assertion is impossible or statistically equivalent to impossible. Conspiracy theory refuted. Certainly this likely won't convince anyone who thinks aliens perpetrated 9-11 but that doesn't make their theory irrefutable. At least for me.

I didn't say it was an absolute refutation to the theory

True. But you did make it seem like it. You said the idea isn't worth discussing. Then (moving on to discussing it) you asked three questions as if it would definitively disabuse the conspiracy theory believer. End of discussion. Sure, the conspiracy-bent rebuttal to your questions leads to the absurd. I didn't say it wouldn't. But what is absurd to you is plausible for someone else, like Loose Change. If Loose Change is operating under the premise that the US government can and would perpetrate 9-11, then, to them, the plausibility of eliminating four commercial passenger flights and replacing them with military grade mockups of those flights, in real time, is no less than the original premise. Cloaking the commercial planes and rerouting them off to Area 51 would be highly believable to the conspiracy junkies I know.

I have no idea why I'm arguing this.
posted by effwerd at 8:58 AM on November 11, 2005


pardonyou?: according to the site - Bush's brother (not Jeb) is/was involved in the company managing security for the WTC towers.

While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I do feel like a wealth of information from the events of that day has gone missing. I distinctly remember things from that day that haven't been discussed any further. There are a lot of questions that need answers.

What about tape of the planes hitting the WTC that were probably caught by the local TV station cameras positioned on the TV tower of the buildings themselves?

What about the air traffic control tapes that were destroyed by some manager-guy because of some technicality? Anybody remember that? It was discussed on this site extensively at the time. Why do that?

What about the video tape from the Florida convenience store supposedly of Mohammad Otta and his dad that was taken from the clerk by the FBI and later returned with that section missing? (heard on this american life, if I remember correctly)

Why was Cheney's whereabouts never really defined? Why did both Cheney and Bush refuse to testify under oath for the 9/11 commission? Why was Bush not available to give orders to shoot down aircraft? Even if we don't agree on whether one was shot down - how could the president not have been available?

These are real questions that, while not conspiritorial in nature, are just as exciting to discuss. That's why it's infuriating to see websites devoted to the "phantom laser-guided missile" that brought down one of the towers - we don't need that kind of discussion when there are substantive ones just as exciting.
posted by odinsdream at 8:58 AM on November 11, 2005


First: This video's been out for a while. More than a year.

Second: What ERIKO said about air pressure - you've got 30 plus stories of concrete and debris creating a shock wave and pushing all sorts of things down - remember how many blocks were covered with horrific dust plumes?

Third: What CynicalKnight took the time to explain.

Fourth: Farenheit 911 gave a more compelling argument for malfeasance - from Suadi friends of our inept POTUS.

Happy Veteran's Day.

posted by tzelig at 8:59 AM on November 11, 2005


Oh - and if the plane that hit the pentagon even touched the ground slightly, where are the marks? If it didn't, man wasn't that some good flying? 300+ mph, coming in at an angle, and you miss the ground but don't overshoot the building? In fact - you smack right into the ground level.

Not saying it isn't possible - but that's some good flying, especially given the stress level.
posted by odinsdream at 9:01 AM on November 11, 2005


Assume the WTC collapse was controlled demolition, for instance. How many people actually know how to do that? Who are they, where were they? How much explosive material would that take, and where would you place it? Who was on security detail at the WTC in the days leading up to the attack?

Rest assured that if any of these questions are answered, Bill Frist will demand an inquiry into the source of the leak and let the world know that he is much more concerned about the source of that leak than he is about the destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:08 AM on November 11, 2005


then where did all the people on those "supposed" planes go?

They're on Lost, dude. You might think it's fiction, but it's actually a reality show.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:19 AM on November 11, 2005


Why go to the trouble of a controlled demolition and hiding a bunch of plane passengers? It just seems like it would be such a pain in the ass. If you were an evil conspirator, it would make more sense to hire some motley band of terrorists to crash planes into a buildilng, or at the very least sweep terror warnings under the rug.
posted by johngoren at 9:37 AM on November 11, 2005


Regardless of the conclusions reached by the filmakers (I'm not much for conspiracy theories of any kind), the points they raise are provoking. Before dismissing it out of hand, especially without watching it, as the work of crackpots, it seems worthwhile to look at what they present, if only to be aware of alternative "evidence."
posted by wendyfairy at 9:39 AM on November 11, 2005


I haven't watched this documentary.

Right. And I haven't read Harry Potter either. But I just *know* it's evil and all that stuff.

Not sure what my point is, but what the heck.
posted by Doohickie at 9:45 AM on November 11, 2005


Wendyfairy, This is not an attack on you, but some of us have watched the video, and by your logic should we also then listen to some crackpot school board in Kansas just to become aware of their alternative evidence for intelligent design? Sorry - we don't have anymore time left to tolerate fools.

Our kids are going to have their asses handed to them if we can't learn to cut through this malarky.
posted by tzelig at 9:53 AM on November 11, 2005


I hate this crap, I really do. I know a guy who used to be a pretty good activist until he got ahold of all this stuff. Now I can't get him to do anything. "They'll never give up power that easily," is how he sees things now.

I think you've hit the core of the matter. Conspiracy theory obsession is about defeatism. I had a roommate (who drove me fucking crazy), who was absolutely obsessed with conspiracy theories. One day I just asked him, "Ok, fine. Bush is in league with the Mafia are in leauge with the Pope is in league with the Rosicrucians are in league with the Phone Company who planned 9-11, assasinated Kennedy, and are singlehandedly responsible for the disappearance of Boo-berry cereal. So what? What are we supposed to do about this? What is our response? How do we fight back?"

And his answer?

Nothing. A big, fat, nothing. He had no answer at all.

Conspiracy theories are a good excuse for admitting defeat. They allow you to blame others for your problems while providing a convenient excuse for your continued laziness.
posted by afroblanca at 9:56 AM on November 11, 2005


I should also add that in the cases where Conspiracy Theory obsession ISN'T about defeatism, it's almost always a symptom of actual mental illness, be it Schizopherenia, Monomania, or some other such malady.
posted by afroblanca at 9:58 AM on November 11, 2005


While I don't believe the FBI pulled the trigger on Malcolm X, I do think they can be held responsible due to their inaction in spite of what they knew. Ditto here. This admin knew, or should have known, what was coming down and chose to let it happen. We can infer from today's body counts that 3000 people would be considered by this administration a small price (for someone else) to pay. They have shown a disinterest in fixing problems that lead to the tragedy, while engaging in a great and energetic pursuit of their previously stated agendas.
posted by pointilist at 10:09 AM on November 11, 2005


And just for fun: George's Interesting Day.
posted by pointilist at 10:11 AM on November 11, 2005


An MIT study showed that tinfoil hats actually improve government transmissions:
The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz.
...
It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:18 AM on November 11, 2005


I find this interesting. Going beyond, or perhaps side-stepping the plausibility of such a conspiracy, the demand of the population for rational, factual evidence exposes a vulnerability in itself to that population.

If the method for the population to detect and incriminate an oppressor is through our institutions of fact and logic, then doesn't it follow that a successful strategy for the want-to-be oppressor would be to a) conduct extraordinary events, b) scatter multitude (and even conflicting) information for the population to seek, discover and mull?

The extraordinary events bring uncertainty, possibly fear. The scattered information engenders a positive feedback loop of doubt and factual uncertainty.

In short, if the target's defenses are it's rationality, then you overpower them with psychotic tactics that make so little sense, they couldn't really be happening! ;) You attack the population's psyche at a level where their own defense becomes your offense.

This is very compelling in a superman kind of way - if an entity could change itself radically enough, and compose new realities with great agility, it could be capable of this very manipulation upon others.

/mad frothing rant
posted by ginbiafra at 10:26 AM on November 11, 2005


gah. stabs self for the "it's" error.
posted by ginbiafra at 10:28 AM on November 11, 2005


kirkaracha: They're on Lost, dude. You might think it's fiction, but it's actually a reality show.

*walks to radio shack to buy a new keyboard*
posted by ginbiafra at 10:33 AM on November 11, 2005


Conspiracy theory obsession is about defeatism.

What is wrong with defeatism? Sometimes it is important to just lie down and admit you have been beaten.
posted by prak at 10:33 AM on November 11, 2005


THE MOON LANDING DIDNT HAPPEN FREE MUMIA ZIONIST CONSPIRACY YELLOWCAKE HIT THE PENTAGON SNAKES ON A PLANE SECRET BRAINWASHING HIDDEN BLACK HELICOPTERS FACILITY UTAH WEAPONIZED ANTRHAX BIRD FLU KARL ROVE PLOT COSMIC RAYS PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS FLUORIDE VACCINATIONS NANOBOTS GENETIC MODIFICATION FROM SPACE UFOS HIDDEN IN DESERT OUTHOUSE NO BLOOD FOR OIL CIA AGENTS TORTURED HIDDEN COMMUNICATION DEVICE ON BUSHS BACK SECRET PRISON IN DORMANT VOLCANO SNAKES ON A PLANE RECTAL MIND CONTROL PARASITES TERROR ALERT SECRET CODE HALLIBURTON DIEBOLD I VOTED FOR KODOS RACIST CLAN OF ILLUMINATI PROJECTING VOICES ON GOVERNMENT FREQUENCIES US MILITARY HIDING PIECE OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A ROBOT SNAKES WERE FLYING THE PLANES WHY WONT ANYONE LISTEN TO ME
posted by Krrrlson at 10:48 AM on November 11, 2005 [1 favorite]



How do we fight back?"
And his answer?
Nothing. A big, fat, nothing. He had no answer at all.


We fight by spreading the word. By planting the seed of doubt. That's our basic citizen's duty.
I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories. My first reaction to this movie was similar to most of yours - rejection. Someone's got too much time on their hards, I thought.
I, however, took the time to download the DVD quality video and watch it again. I have to say a few points made good sense to me.
I refuse to believe that two buildings contructed in the 20th cetury, designed and built by mastermind architects can collapse less than an hour after a few floors have been burning. They were specifically designed to resist to earthquakes, hurricanes and God knows what else. I'm sorry, but I don't think they'd fall just like that.
And, I'm sorry but I don't believe the article in Pupular Mechanics that "explains" it.
posted by zeerobots at 10:51 AM on November 11, 2005


This is kind of frustrating. Watch the video, then debunk if you must. If you haven't watched it, you have no place in the discussion about it.

erico: "Answer: Fire.

Fire kills tall buildings, and the more mass above the fire, the faster it happens. But, in modern skyscrapers, floor soaking long term fires are very rare. We've had fires, sure -- but most of them were controlled very quickly."


In the video, it's mentioned that no buildings in history prior to 9/11 have collapsed due to fire. They even mention several examples of significantly worse fires which raged for many, many hours, without collapsing the building. However, on 9/11, three buildings collapsed, with the official cause being fire.

CynicalKnight: "The Pentagon was a reinforced structure, no? Perhaps the plane hit ground first, or struck at an angle?"

Refuted in the video, there is no ground damage in the lawn.

"not absolute disproof"
No, but it raises interesting questions. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's not the best approach to dismiss out of hand, an idea that sounds a little crazy at first. CynicalKnight made some good points, and there are weak arguments in the video. However, there are some bits that still make me scratch my head.
posted by knave at 11:35 AM on November 11, 2005


Wingnut.
posted by brownpau at 11:38 AM on November 11, 2005


All of you who keep saying that you aren't much for conspiracy theories, but... need to revisit your self-image. If you're buying this shit, not only are you a conspiracy theorist, you're a nutjob to boot.
posted by OmieWise at 11:40 AM on November 11, 2005


tzelig, I find it's better to know the basis of the other argument. How else can one show the originator (or anyone else) where the fallacy lies?

Regarding the collapse of the towers, William Langewiesche writing for the Atlantic Monthly had a series of articles that eventually became the book, American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center. In it he proposes that the impact of the jets knocked the concrete fireproofing off of the steel supports on those floors. The jet fuel caught the office paper on fire and it burned really hot weakening the steel. When the upper floors fell, the impact is what caused the catastrophic implosion. Seems plausible, but the zoom-ins of the areas below the "impact wave" on these videos is questionable. Also, the time frame is incredibly short. These guys could be wackos, but they might also have a point.
posted by wendyfairy at 11:42 AM on November 11, 2005


I do not support their government-sponsored attack theory, however. There may have been secondary explosions, but they don't show how or why they occurred, they only speculate.
posted by wendyfairy at 11:47 AM on November 11, 2005


There are weak moments, but the one part that really got me was seeing the slow-motion collapses, where it explosions were shooting out 10 floors below the wake of the collapse.

When buildings collapse, matter gets compressed and blown outwards below the point of impact. Try bashing down on a Jenga tower sometime. Jenga blocks fly out from below where you hit it. That doesn't mean that conspiratorial explosives were placed there.

Cell phone logs indicate most cell phone calls from flight victims took place at cruising altitude.

Cell phone logs do not show what altitude the phone was at when the call was made.
posted by brownpau at 11:55 AM on November 11, 2005


On this page, the third picture from the top is a bombed building in Belgrade. So NATO planes bombed the crap out of this building and it's still standing, yet the twins collapsed in 45 minutes? Give me a break!
posted by zeerobots at 11:55 AM on November 11, 2005


The building in Belgrade was not built in the same way as the WTC in New York. Duh.
posted by brownpau at 11:58 AM on November 11, 2005


What is wrong with defeatism? Sometimes it is important to just lie down and admit you have been beaten.

Well, that sort of thing is fine as long as you're being honest with yourself. However, blaming all of your problems on a nebulous "third party" represents a level of self-deception that I'm not at all cool with.

We fight by spreading the word. By planting the seed of doubt.

That line of thinking is perfectly acceptable, however, it holds absolutely no credibility with me unless the allegations are based on fact.

Like I used to tell my conspiracy-theory-loving ex-roommate, there's no need to resort to conspiracy theories when the truth is in plain sight. I can't believe that in a time when such obvious bullshitters as Bush & co are in charge that people are even taking the time to formulate conspiracy theories. Just open a goddamn newspaper, people!

And, I'm sorry but I don't believe the article in Pupular [sic] Mechanics that "explains" it.

Really? How about this one?
posted by afroblanca at 12:01 PM on November 11, 2005


zeerobots writes "I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories."

I don't know what usual means to you, but I don't usually consider the opinions of non-engineers on structural damage issues. Can you post your degree, please?
posted by OmieWise at 12:02 PM on November 11, 2005


The World Trade Center towers had a different design than earlier large buildings, so they behaved differently in a fire. Traditional skyscrapers had evenly-spaced support columns througout the floors. The WTC towers' columns were along the outside walls. Horizontal strusses connected the outside walls with the inner core where the elevators and stairs were. Because they didn't have interior support columns, the WTC towers had floor plans that were more open than traditional skyscrapers.

When the planes hit, the impact blew the protective foam insulation off of the horizontal support trusses, and fire from the burning jet fuel spread throughout the floors. Basically the whole floor caught on fire at once. The fire weakend the support trusses, which eventually distorted and collapsed.

An MIT engineering professor's perspective on the Twin Towers collapse (and his technical paper), and an animation of how they might have collapsed.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:05 PM on November 11, 2005


NinjaPirate: The new government would have had 8 months to plan, win support/secrecy, prepare and execute the plan.

What "new" government?
posted by sfslim at 12:15 PM on November 11, 2005


OK, I'm watched some of the video. First he says that the airplane debris at the Pentagon is from a fighter plane, then he says the damage was from a cruise missile. Did "They" fire a cruise missile into the Pentagon, then plant burned plane parts at the scene on national television?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:37 PM on November 11, 2005


Cell phone logs do not show what altitude the phone was at when the call was made.
posted by brownpau at 2:55 PM EST on November 11 [!]


No, but correlate time of the cell phone call with the position and altitude of the plane, and — from logs — most of the cell phone calls were made at cruising altitude.
posted by Rothko at 12:47 PM on November 11, 2005


But I thought the black boxes had been lost:

Hijacker passport used for identification of perpetrators survives the WTC impact but redundant flight recorders do not in both impacts

And both WTC planes disappeared from radar after being hijacked. So what were these so-called cell phone logs compared against, exactly?
posted by brownpau at 12:54 PM on November 11, 2005


Did they disappear from GPS tracking? I thought that radio communication was lost but that's different from tracking.
posted by Rothko at 12:57 PM on November 11, 2005


Finally the truth has been revealed.
posted by graventy at 1:11 PM on November 11, 2005


I don't buy the supracompetency theory.

And supraloyalty -- with Bush at 36%, and Trent fuckin' Lott off the reservation -- ain't looking like too good of a theory, either. People should be coming forward by the, er, planeload by now.

Most of the military isn't like Jerry Boykin -- it's like Larry Wilkerson. They won't cover for this crew indefinitely. Yes, they have ways of keeping people in line, but we know at this point that their primary weapon is the ratfuck. Fear. Fear, and the ... you get my drift.
posted by dhartung at 1:14 PM on November 11, 2005


Call me cynical. And too big a fan of The Long Kiss Goodnight, but the idea that Bush's government would, if not directly do themselves, certainly allow a group of extremists to engage in some amazingly low-fatality, all things considered, badness...it's not out of my realm of possible. Given his joy over "Lucky me. I hit the trifecta", it certainly seems suspiciously like a republican wish-list-granting-machine...

To me, the biggest red-flags I see over the official version of 9/11 aren't pointing towards faking the crashes, so much as knowing it was going to happen, and allowing it. Perhaps moderating the timing of the attacks to minimize death-toll. The idea that only 3k+ people died, when the usual load on just WTC1 and 2 is 50k, seems unrealisticly lucky for 47k of those people.
posted by nomisxid at 1:14 PM on November 11, 2005


The idea that only 3k+ people died, when the usual load on just WTC1 and 2 is 50k, seems unrealisticly lucky for 47k of those people.

Not at 8:45am when not everyone is in the office yet, plus a lot of people evacuated, since, you know, the buildings were burning and all. (Waits for check from White House.)
posted by brownpau at 1:19 PM on November 11, 2005


brownpau, that's my point. If the planes had struck just a half-hour later, the carnage would have been much higher. Seems odd to me, that someone trying to cause as much damage and loss of life, wouldn't know to wait till 10am-ish, after all the straglers have made it to work, and before even the earliest 11am lunch breaks.
posted by nomisxid at 1:23 PM on November 11, 2005


The terrorists underestimated American sloth.
posted by Rothko at 1:24 PM on November 11, 2005


By God, you're right. You should write to Bush and tell him to tell his minions to execute terror attacks between 9am and 5pm, and not a minute earlier or later. America just won't stand for this shoddily organized conspiracy planning. If you can't slow down your remote-controlled planes such that they hit the buildings after office hours have started, you have no business flying them into WTC at all.
posted by brownpau at 1:30 PM on November 11, 2005


9/11 was actually an extremely incompetent execution by the Bush administration of a conspiracy to hijack cruise ships and run them at full speed into Paris.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:39 PM on November 11, 2005


To all those crying "conspiracy theory": let's not forget that the officially sanctioned version of the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Supposedly 19 arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked four commercial jets and managed to fly 3 of them slam-dunk accurate into prominent targets in densely populated areas. Withing 15 minutes of the second WTC being hit, every newscaster in the land was pinning the acts on a shadowy international group known as Al-Quaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden. By the end of the day, that particular conspiracy theory had become Truth with a capital T.
posted by telstar at 1:43 PM on November 11, 2005



posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:45 PM on November 11, 2005



posted by fandango_matt at 1:47 PM on November 11, 2005


Bin Laden Admits to 9/11

O RLY YA RLY
posted by brownpau at 2:16 PM on November 11, 2005



posted by Stynxno at 2:18 PM on November 11, 2005



posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:28 PM on November 11, 2005



posted by thirteenkiller at 2:31 PM on November 11, 2005


Metafilter: can't tell which is Fark
posted by elpapacito at 3:34 PM on November 11, 2005


How did the government identify the "19 hijackers" so quickly?

If the planes had struck just a half-hour later, the carnage would have been much higher. Seems odd to me, that someone trying to cause as much damage and loss of life, wouldn't know to wait till 10am-ish, after all the straglers have made it to work, and before even the earliest 11am lunch breaks.

Why do you assume that the attackers were trying to "cause as much damage and loss of life" as possible? If they wanted to do that, they could have flown the planes into a nuclear facility... except the government wouldn't have let them do that. ;|
posted by mrgrimm at 4:26 PM on November 11, 2005


To clarify, I don't have any (strong) reason to suspect the U.S. government orchestrated the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

However, I would not be surprised if important people in the U.S. government knew specifics about the attack before it happened, and let it happen anyway. I have no reason to believe it (as yet) but I would not be surprised.

There has to be some objective and skeptical analysis of the facts. We can't just assume Osama bin Laden and his organization were responsible just because they said they were. That's shoddy.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:31 PM on November 11, 2005


First, the ASTM standards he used in the documentary were not consistent with reality. The ASTM standard judges fire resistance on steel sizes, i.e. size and amount of material. The WTC, from an architectural standpoint, was doomed to fail. The structure relied on a light weight square steel core (the elevators and stairs) which allowed the WTC to achieve its great height.

So, basically the core of the buildings were supported by small steel members closely spaced, as opposed to a concrete or 2-hour shaft wall with large steel members. Any structural engineer today, would tell you that when using a system like this. Failure of one of the core elements leads to the weakening of the surrounding support, and ultimately stuctural failure.

The small "explosions" in the documentary, can be attributed to air pressure in the building. Tall buildings are pressurized, particularly the core elements (stairs and elevator shafts) to prevent smoke and fire from being sucked through these vertical elements which would spread to other floors. Tall buildings have separate HVAC units for each of these core elements, and the WTC having 103 elevators would indicate that the pressuization would occur evey 20 floors or so.

It's a structural domino effect really, and very very very bad design.

(which is why it has never been duplicated, even before the attacks)
posted by Benway at 5:44 PM on November 11, 2005


I do know that the WTC was a hellish building to work in, even briefly, as a temp for a five weeks, and yes, there was weird air pressure in the hallways.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:57 PM on November 11, 2005


Jeff Well's guide
posted by hortense at 6:40 PM on November 11, 2005


most of the cell phone calls were made at cruising altitude

Yea, but that's hijacker cruising altitude. Zeroing in on a land target/stay off radar altitude. Cruise missile altitude. Cellphone altitude.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:32 PM on November 11, 2005


"The terrorists underestimated American sloth."

Americans work longer hours than most comparable countries.


posted by crabintheocean at 8:40 PM on November 11, 2005


I made it 21 seconds into this video before I could bear it no more.
posted by nanojath at 8:50 PM on November 11, 2005


The prevailing sentiment of those who consider themselves "mainstream" is that videos such as "Loose Change" are to be rejected out of hand. Most of the posts here take this attitude. This is indicative of the so-called "mainstream" mindset. "Mainstreamers" have been assigned the high moral ground by the powers that be. Their way of thinking is therefore considered "normal", they are considered "acceptable" and "normal"!

The problem with being "mainstream" is that it requires one to rigidly blockout any way of thinking that is considered outside of the mainstream. This amounts to self censorship or even self-delusion in it's extreme manifestations. The Truth is certainly not exclusive to the "mainstream" nor is it exclusive to "alternative" viewpoints. Truth can only be arrived at, by a careful consideration of the two. Blocking out alternative or non-mainstream views merely prevents one from seeing things that are deliberately concealed from the "mainstream" by the 'powers that be'. In reality, what's considered "mainstream" today, is actually a carefully controlled perception of reality. It's main function is to carefully manage what people think by completely controlling what they see, and hear, in the mainstream media.

'Loose Change' and other productions of this genre, attempt to introduce the mainstream audience to information that's been deliberately hidden, because it tends to destroy the controlled "mainstream" reality. Mainstreamers tend to fight to stay within the safety of their mindset, as it's both "comforting" and "acceptable". They share a considerable aversion to anything that is considered "conspiracy theories" or "unacceptable". Such things are therefore to be resisted, even if they are true! For the true mainstream mind, it's more important to avoid being considered a "conspiracy theorist" than any other consideration! Mainstreamers are also fully convinced that the world can always be explained by "mainstream" explanations and positions. For them, an "expert" opinion, trumps all other points of view. They generally feel there's no need to look outside of "mainstream" territory for explanations for things like 9/11, JFK, etc.

So-called "Conspiracy Theorists" by contrast, attempt to deal with the facts of these specific cases, without limiting the disscussion to "mainstream" explanations or positions. These people are more concerned with arriving at the truth than being "mainstream" or "acceptable". They're willing to let the chips fall where they may so to speak. Hence "conspiracy theorists" find themselves uncovering information which the "mainstreamer" feels compelled to blockout or ridicule.

Mainstreamers would be wise to consider the fact that In order to effectively understand complex issues like 9/11, the JFK case etc. one must be capable of venturing outside of the controlled mainstream perception of reality. Without such fundamental courage and determination, a true understanding of these events is impossible.
posted by Acheh at 12:46 PM on December 6, 2005


« Older House With Bride   |   The Story of Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post