Loose Change - Final Cut: Now on google video
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
30 odd posts and not one substantial error of fact alledged yet. Ho hum.
Actually, the film starts with a bunch of trufers doing a demo, claiming their "inside job" mantra. That's contestable for sure.
After that, as I say, much of the film is just TV footage starting with the Talibans offer to hand over Bin Laden if evidence is presented. Then into a load of stuff about the scuppering of Operation Able Danger. It's some time before the more predictable stuff but again it is fairly lacking in speculation.
Jazzz: Dont get it into your head that this is anything like the other 2 films. I dont know why they gave it the same name to be honest.
Actually, the film starts with a bunch of trufers doing a demo, claiming their "inside job" mantra. That's contestable for sure.
After that, as I say, much of the film is just TV footage starting with the Talibans offer to hand over Bin Laden if evidence is presented. Then into a load of stuff about the scuppering of Operation Able Danger. It's some time before the more predictable stuff but again it is fairly lacking in speculation.
Jazzz: Dont get it into your head that this is anything like the other 2 films. I dont know why they gave it the same name to be honest.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
God alone knows why they billed the Roxy showing as a "world premiere". It's been doing the rounds in the states for at least a month.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
taffboy gwyrdd said:
I'll ask again, why is there a need for a third film? Why was so much from the original film taken out? Because it made the case or because it was show to be innaccurate? What do you think? If the former, does that suggest anything about the film makers to you?
editor
hiraethified
It would certainly appear so, seeing as millions of people paid up to watch them.Jazzz said:Was there a need for Jaws II? Or Rocky IV?
Unlike the flop 'world premiere' of a shit film that could barely attract a crowd of a 100 people in one of the biggest cities in the world. On a Saturday.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Editor and Butchersapron
I am not making claims that cant be demonstrated and backed up. Neither is this film. I think this is probably the big strategic difference with the last film.
Troofers have a problem that no matter how fishy all this is they will always struggle to get proof because there has been so much spin, secrecy and destruction of evidence. To try and answer BAs question more fully: I aint a speaker for the flim makers, neither am I psychic but perhaps they thought there was no point saying any 1 contentious thing for fear it would damage the credibility of non-contentious things they are able to demonstrate.
I am obviously interested in 911, but I am agnostic and certainly not an activist on the issue. It's almost like the more I look into it the more agnostic I get. I didnt start the thread to make claims, though I actually make a claim when I pointed out the obstruction of Operation Able Danger and the various associated fibs pointed out in the flim.
I am not making claims that cant be demonstrated and backed up. Neither is this film. I think this is probably the big strategic difference with the last film.
Troofers have a problem that no matter how fishy all this is they will always struggle to get proof because there has been so much spin, secrecy and destruction of evidence. To try and answer BAs question more fully: I aint a speaker for the flim makers, neither am I psychic but perhaps they thought there was no point saying any 1 contentious thing for fear it would damage the credibility of non-contentious things they are able to demonstrate.
I am obviously interested in 911, but I am agnostic and certainly not an activist on the issue. It's almost like the more I look into it the more agnostic I get. I didnt start the thread to make claims, though I actually make a claim when I pointed out the obstruction of Operation Able Danger and the various associated fibs pointed out in the flim.
oh editor, I thought I told you to worry about other stuff?editor said:
Matinee showings rarely attract crowds. Especially not documentaries.
Although it may not be on the mainstream cinema circuit, the Loose Change series have been watched hundreds of millions of times on the internet. Put that in your hit counter and smoke it...
editor
hiraethified
But it wasn't a mere "matinee performance," Jazzz.Jazzz said:
It was nothing less than the WORLD PREMIÈRE exposing the greatest conspiracy and cover up the world has ever seen!!!
So why do you think so few people could be arsed to attend? Any ideas?
Oh, and have you any criticisms of the peer reviewed piece published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics referred to a few posts ago? I can assume that you agree with its findings?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
None
Augie March
blahem
TheDave said:
I dunno, that 2girls1cup video is pretty credible.
breasticles
the smell of life
taffboy, have you ever googled mark 'gravy' roberts? if you want to pointed in the direction of someone who will outline all the major errors of fact in any version of loose change, he's your man. theres a thread about loose change 3 on the JREF forums. ive not read it because i'm trying to wean myself off troofer debunking sites, mainly because troofers make me so angry my sleep patterns get interefered with.
teqniq said:Oooo, three pages.
2girls1cup omg
*feels ill*
*gets coat.*
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nOn1htjSZic
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Some number crunching
Posts on thread: 51
Approx. % of posts which are broadly derisory towards film: 70 to 80
Number of posts answering original simple request to point out substantial errors of fact in film: Zero.
Posts on thread: 51
Approx. % of posts which are broadly derisory towards film: 70 to 80
Number of posts answering original simple request to point out substantial errors of fact in film: Zero.
BlackSpecs
The DogFather
Augie March said:I dunno, that 2girls1cup video is pretty credible.
I actually looked this up , since I had no idea what you were talking about ..........
x 1000 !*leaves the internet for a couple of weeks feeling rather sick*
editor
hiraethified
Some number crunching: currently extant posts on these boards dealing in great detail with the claims made in the film which are still being completely ignored by taffboy gwyrdd = >2,000.taffboy gwyrdd said:
Claims contained in the film which taffboy gwyrdd has backed up with credible evidence from a non-lunatic source = Zero
Responses from taffboy gwyrdd to the peer reviewed study referred to earlier in this very thread = Zero
taffboy gwyrdd's credibility as an independent, non-agenda-laden individual sincerely researching the events of 9/11 = Zero
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Editor
There are no posts on this board that I have seen pointing out errors of fact in this film. I repeat, it is a totally new film.
There are no posts on this board that I have seen pointing out errors of fact in this film. I repeat, it is a totally new film.
editor
hiraethified
1. I don't believe you when you say it makes any fresh claims - it's just the same old guff regurgitated and polished uptaffboy gwyrdd said:
2. Does it accept that the WTC collapsed because of being hit by the planes and subsequent structural failure?
If it doesn't, then it directly contradicts the peer reviewed scientific material referred to earlier in this thread so be sure to point out their failings, backing up your claims with credible, suitably qualified sources.
Can you do that?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
taffboy gwyrdd said:
The film makes the claim that Satam Al Suqami's passport was in his pocket, but of course he has no way of knowing that.
It repeats the claim about the ISI connection and the wire transfer, it ignores the fact that that claim has never been verified came in the weeks of the attack.
They also show an Air Force officer saying "We fought many phantoms that day," without mentioning that he's not referring to their supposed "insertions" but to phantom Flight 11, which the military believed was still airborne long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center, and to other flights which were believed to have possibly been hijacked like Delta 1989.
Also it says that Hani Hanjour came to the US to become a pilot but failed to complete any courses, but did not finish them it neglects to mention he already had a license before he came.
It rattles on and on about the fucking wargames, but as I have linked to it before, actually helped to increase response time.
They also, once again, mention that free fall from the top of the towers would be 9.2 seconds. Then they show a tower collapse with a timer. The collapses started from the impact zones below the roof, so they can not be compared to the collapse times from the top of the towers. And still the collapses took longer than 9.2 seconds. But they still like to use that "suspicious" time.
It repeats the lie about the pentagon missile defenses, the pentagon had no missile defenses on Sept 11th 2001.
They mention the loss of financial information in the Pentagon impact, and then say "Rumsfeld publicly made this announcement" about the untracked $2.3 trillion.
Between September 2000 and June 2001, the FAA scrambled jets to intercept 67 times. Intercepts are routine and usually happen within 10 minutes. Even shit for brains Jazzz, has been forced to drop this one.
However they provide no evidence to say that loss of financial information had anything to do with the $2.3 trillion. Also the use of the word "announcement" might lead people to think this was new information, when in fact he and others had mentioned it before, and the issue first came up in March 2000.
How's those for a start taffy? The film is a crook of shit dressing up conjecture and speculation and pretending it's proof.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
