Errors in Loose Change 2

[Debunking911]

And other interesting points. Like using questionable people and web sites as so called experts.

http://media2.uploadjar.com/uploads/911_loose_change_vie15a3eb.pdf

How can they be taken so seriously? Why are they relying so heavily on unreliable people? If the facts are true you don't need con men to prove it.

[m0nkeyneck]

1. same can be said re: official theory

it's just 1 film..

[Debunking911]

4. Not really..

they have evidence which isn't so easily refuted. You can't use an unofficial story built on lies to refute an official story with evidence to back it up.

[Sterling]

33. your site does not work?

looks like you spent a lot of time putting it up.

[mirandapriestly]

9. Right , same could be said of 911 Commission Report

and in terms of people on the Commission, there was a conflict of interest.

[KJF]

2. I read the first few pages...

... I would have believed it was impossible, but the debunking is almost as bad as the damn film in the first place. Just one example:

Discussing whether windows could be seen on United 175 before it hit the South Tower, the author asks "Can YOU pick out the windows on airliner at 12,000 feet?"
With reference to the fact the plane was at about 1,000 feet at this time, what has an altitude of 12,000 feet got to do with it? I'm utterly convinced the South Tower was hit by United 175, but I really don't think that the plane's altitude has to be multiplied by a factor of 12 to demonstrate this.

[Debunking911]

3. He was 2 miles away...

..when he saw it. That's not 1000 ft. You are thinking horizontal and not adding the lateral distance.



"This is United N612UA, (flight 175) as it would look at approximately 1 mile.
Bimbach was over two miles away when he saw it. Source
Can YOU pick out the windows on airliner at 12,000 feet?"

2 miles plus 1000 ft equal 11,560 ft. Close enough I think.

I would have a bit more evidence which is out there to back up some of his other claims but the facts he DOES have are solid. Like the engine information and such.

[Jazz2006]

6. Sorry for the repetition in my #5

I read posts #1 and #2 then went to the link and spent quite a while reading that and didn't see your post #3 until after I'd posted mine as I hadn't refreshed the page in the interim.

Anyway, I agree with you that there are areas where more evidence ought to be included to back up some of the claims made. In my view, it could do with a bit less sarcasm and fewer emotive responses, but the debunker seems to have done a lot more and better research than the Loose Change guys have.

[Debunking911]

7. I don't know,

I think the loose change video has some sarcasm too. Maybe they need a little of their own medicine. ;)

I get just as upset when they take dead heros quotes and take them out of context like the firemen on the 78th floor. As if the fire on all floors were the same... This guy can't argue hes being misquoted. GRRR.

[Jazz2006]

15. Oh, I agree that

Loose Change is full of sarcasm and that giving them a taste of their own medicine is completely understandable.

Especially when it comes to the victims and the rescuers.

And especially since it is so blindingly obvious that Loose Change was not at all about the victims despite its dubious claims to the contrary.

Agreed entirely about the misquoting and blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations that are rife throughout Loose Change, including those about the fires (isolated pockets of fire does not mean "small" fires, and the comment on 78 most certainly does not comment on the massive fires that were burning above 78 as Loose Change likes to pretend).

I am glad that the rebuttal has taken the time to go through it frame by frame and present such a lengthy rebuttal. The rebuttal is far more accurate than Loose Change can even pretend to be and those who created Loose Change deserve every bit of what the rebuttal says.

I'm just saying that there were some areas in the rebuttal where it struck me that there was no need to sink to the inferior level of the Loose Change guys and where the rebuttal could have toned down the sarcasm a bit and stuck to the obviously superior research and factfinding that the debunker did.

That said, it was just my initial reaction after the first read. I might change my mind on that after I go through it again.

:)

[KJF]

17. OK, fair point

I'll find something else then.

I find the author to be generally much better than Loose Change regarding the Pentagon (absolutely the worst bit in Loose Change), but there are some problems with his analysis:

(1) The author says the plane "hit the ground first". I doubt it. The wings and engines hit things on the ground - lamp posts, a generator and the utility vault retaining wall - not the ground itself.

(2) He doesn't dispute the claim that windows next to the hole are intact, he just says they were "bomb-resistant". This is mostly true, but the window the tail hit is clearly damaged.

(3) The author says that the "official report is that the landing gear ... made" the punchout hole. It isn't. The hole hasn't been explained officially. I previously thought it was the landing gear, but I'm not so sure now.

(4) He doesn't challenge the claim that the plane would have had to go through 9 feet of reinforced concrete, even though it is completely fictional.

(5) He says that the entry hole is 75 feet, whereas it's really about 90-96 feet. That's a lot better than Loose Change, but it could be significantly improved on.

Like I said, it's better than Loose Change itself, but not by that much.

[Debunking911]

25. To clarify

1) The left side hit the ground while the right hit the ground just before impacting the building. You can see the damage on the first floor outer wall. That damage is impossible unless the engine hit the ground allowing the wing to slam into the wall.

Here is a composite of the impact area.



At the end on the long red arrow to the left you can see the steel columns showing through the remaining brick/concrete on the first floor. That's the wing damage. That damage would be impossible unless the engine was on the floor. Now look at the damage by the right arrow. That damage would be impossible unless something was that high enough to hit it. Something also caused a wing like damage which tappers from the large whole in the center to the end of the arrow to the right. A better view of the tapered impact of the wing and first floor damage...



2) These windows are NOT made to take the impact of a bomb or an airliner. The idea is to lessen the shrapnel wounds of flying glass. In that way they are "bomb-resistant" but this is semantics. I would have chosen the word "Hardened" but the point is the windows were not your average window which is why most survived. I don't know what conspiracy sites want to prove with this anyway. Whether a missile or plane hit it most windows survived. You would think a missile which is built to explode into small metal shrapnel would have done even more damage.

3) it doesn't matter what the official story is for the hole. We can assume a missile didn't explode on the outside, put itself back together again, continue into the building then blow a loony toons hole. But I'll try to double check that.

4) We SEE the airliners go through structural steel of the WTC. It pulverized two floors of reinforced concrete flooring on impact. The damage of the pentagon wasn't as bad. The KE of an airliner at 500 miles an out is massive. Do you have any physics to back up the "fictional" claim or is that something you read in a conspiracy web site.

5) He isn't using that information to PROVE anything as where the loose change flubs are made to PROVE their case. If the hole was 75 or 96 feet doesn't matter.

[KJF]

28. You appear to have confused me with somebody else

For example, I pointed out that Loose Change was incorrect in claiming that whatever hit the Pentagon went through six 18-inch reinforced concrete walls - it only went through 2 walls; and the outer wall was made of limestone and brick and the hole to A-E drive was made of a double layer of masonry (although they both had concrete frames). Here's a picture of the inner C-ring hole.


The bricks are clearly visible. Are you seriously suggesting that Loose Change got it right and this wall is made of 18-inch reinforced concrete?

[Debunking911]

29. Where did I say that?

I never said anything other than it doesn't matter what Loose Change said about the hole. Missiles don't explode, put themselves back together again, continue through the building then create a loony toon hole. It doesn't matter how thick the walls are.

There is no bomb that can do this...



put itself back together again to do this...



A good explination would be the wheels of the airliner which were strong enough at the towers to remove a whole column tree and send it crashing to the ground with the wheel still stuck between the columns.

[KJF]

35. You said it in your post 25

I criticised the anonymous author of the document saying that he missed a very significant error in Loose Change (perhaps the worst one in the whole film). In post 17 I wrote:
"(4) He doesn't challenge the claim that the plane would have had to go through 9 feet of reinforced concrete, even though it is completely fictional."

You replied in post 25:
"4) We SEE the airliners go through structural steel of the WTC. It pulverized two floors of reinforced concrete flooring on impact. The damage of the pentagon wasn't as bad. The KE of an airliner at 500 miles an out is massive. Do you have any physics to back up the "fictional" claim or is that something you read in a conspiracy web site."

When I showed you a picture of a wall that was clearly made of masonry, you backtracked and said in post 29, "I never said anything other than it doesn't matter what Loose Change said about the hole." However, you didn't say that, but you did say a lot of other stuff. Now, do you want to admit the six 18-inch concrete walls are fictional (and that this is a serious error in both Loose Change and the commentary you posted), or do you want to try to worm your way out of it again?

[Yatar]

30. What?!

These windows are NOT made to take the impact of a bomb or an airliner. The idea is to lessen the shrapnel wounds of flying glass. In that way they are "bomb-resistant" but this is semantics. I would have chosen the word "Hardened" but the point is the windows were not your average window which is why most survived. I don't know what conspiracy sites want to prove with this anyway. Whether a missile or plane hit it most windows survived.

The windows were NOT made to take the impact of an airliner, but MOST WINDOWS survived?

What are you saying?! They were magic windows? :think:

[Jazz2006]

5. I think the 12,000 feet was

a reference to the distance from which the guy being quoted was viewing the plane (i.e. 2 miles away (10,560 feet) plus 1,000 feet above), not a reference to the altitude.

[mirandapriestly]

10. That's typical of these "debunking" sites

they use observations (not being able to see windows) that are rarely used and relatively irrelevant and then on top of that , they don't get the facts straight.

[Jazz2006]

16. Um, it was in the Loose Change rebuttal precisely because

Loose Change used that "observation" in a dishonest and bogus way.

Horse, cart.

Order is important.

[mirandapriestly]

21. You must be "jazz" because you are the only one I have on "ignore"

I can not read what you are posting and you know that, so why does "ignored" continue to answer my posts or comment soon after my posts? (I am assuming you have made a personal attack since that is all you ever do, if so I am hoping someone will alert the mods as I am not going to look to see what you post, it is always the same, never based on fact.)

[Jazz2006]

27. Tsk tsk...

Talk about projecting.

:rofl:

[Tobias]

8. Thank You! (no text)

[Yatar]

11. Of course it has errors

We don't know the truth about what happened, period. It's simply asking honest questions about the evidence that any intelligent person would ask, with some speculation as to what the answers might be. Of course it's not going to get everything right, we must expect some errors. That is why it is revised every now and then (with a third version in the works), to help fix some of the errors. But its asking the right questions, and I'm glad its making more Americans wake up from their slumber.

[Sweet Pea]

12. Damn good compilation.

I've been waiting for someone with enough time on their hands to go through that thing and call them out on at least their most blatent half-truths that make all of us and our mission look bad!

:grr:

[Chomp]

13. All you people who like this document

are going to look very, very silly when the MIHOPpers arrive in this thread and out-fact you to death.


You just wait and see....



Any minute now...



I can hear them coming....




Just a second....

[WoodrowFan]

18. want some popcorn?

want some popcorn, it might be a looonnggg wait. we could get hungry. :popcorn:

[HamdenRice]

19. Hey Chomp! What happened to you last time you had your facts wrong?

Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=84640&mesg_id=85306

[Chomp]

20. Just back

from holiday mate and have only just finished a very long and comprehensive reply to your post, so see you over there later!

[mirandapriestly]

22. bwahahahahah.nt

[Chomp]

24. Miranda

all you ever do is mock. That's it. Nothing positive, thoughtful or mannerly. Ever. Just the facile arguments of a charlatan (you can look up what charlatan means here: www.dictionary.com)

Enjoy your groupthink sweetheart.

But if you do have anything constructive you wish to add to the Ireland debate, do join us on the other thread. Your ignorance of that should prove entertaining.

[Grateful for Hope]

31. Chomp

I am not part of this debate for the most part as I read and try to digest all points of view (although I admit that I largely do not believe the OCT), but, I am wondering why people in Ireland are so interested in an event that happened here in the US. Interested enough to debate and try to debunk alternative 9/11 theories, that is.

If MIHOP is true (and, I have not seen enough evidence to confirm this for me), would this impact Ireland? Or, conversely, if the official story is true, does this have implications in Ireland?

[Chomp]

32. Hi Hope

No doubt you'll appreciate that Geroge W. Bush's policies effect the rest of the world. And that 9/11 is a key factor in those policies.

That is the tragedy of this disgusting moron...suddenly America's problems are our problems too. Because of this, I am compelled to engage with the debate in the US and in turn often get drawn into conversations about 9/11.

Moreover, it is as a direct result of 9/11 (and Bush's reaction to it) that US troops now come through Ireland in their hundreds of thousands. Special rendition flights have passed through here too to my utter disgust and horror.

To my mind, that gives me a right to have my say in discussions about 9/11, although I do try to be respectful of the fact that I am a foreigner while at DU.

Finally, I'd be more than delighted if what America was up to had no effect on me at all. But that ain't the case. I didn't come looking to pick a fight with America. America came looking for a fight with me.


Peace, and sorry for being rude at times, which I think prompted you to post. I'm trying to be more positive and less confrontational.

[Grateful for Hope]

34. I really appreciate your reply, Chomp

Thank you!

I do understand that what happens in one country of the world (particularly one that has the, at times, dubious clout of the US), affects the entire world.

I didn't know that US troops are causing disruption to your country...I am very sorry to hear this.

I feel so helpless sometimes as I sit back and watch what is happening here and throughout the world as a direct result of actions taken by BushCo. It is horrifying to me.

BTW, I am largely of Irish descent, so I have a special soft spot in my heart for Ireland. I hope to be able to visit your country someday.

Thanks again for your very thoughtful response!!

:hi:

[Chomp]

37. Thanks Hope, a very nice post

I'm afriad to say that hundreds of thousands of US military are coming through Ireland every year now on the way to Iraq.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0121-01.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Airport
http://www.irishantiwar.org/index.adp


Very, very depressing indeed.

I am actually more disgusted at our governemnt than yours about this. They could tell the US to stick it, but instead have just let them come through in their droves.

Unfortunately, in Ireland these days economic concerns trump evrything else, and as our government is afarid to piss the US off (all your multinationals keep our people in jobs here!) we end up with this terrible state of affairs.

And hey, you can sleep on my sofa if you ever come over to Ireland!

Cheers.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. Thank you for the links!

And, it seems that there are, as is usually the case, economic concerns underlying this US "invasion".

Found this paragraph quite telling:

"Over 160,000 US troops have passed through Shannon Airport in the first quarter of 2006 alone – a 100% increase on last year. Ireland is now the key staging post for US troops on their way to the Middle East. Bertie Ahern has made Irish neutrality a joke. Ahern is supporting George Bush and his war drive against Iran by continuing to offer Shannon to the US Military. Given the record of lies about Iraq, he should immediately withdraw the use of Shannon from the US Military."

Interestingly, our multinationals are not keeping US citizens in jobs. I, for one, will be losing my job by the end of this year because of "economic concerns" -- cheaper to hire green card holders for short-term projects than to keep full-time employees on the payroll.

Looks like we are all screwed in one way or another.

Thanks for the invite!

[graphixtech]

14. the 911 Truth Community does not unanimously support LC

Despite popular appearances, Loose Change does not
have unanimous support in the active 911 truth community.


SF911Truth activist leafletting and confrontation with filmmakers
at the May 2 Oakland, CA showing of Loose Change:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x85545


An Analysis of Loose Change by Michael Green
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

[mirandapriestly]

23. IOW yet another straw man thread.nt

[graphixtech]

26. Long time 911 truth activists flyered the Oakland event

Long time activists in the 911 truth community see many erroneous and false information
items in Loose Change and are concerned about associated credibility.


When Loose Change came to Oakland on May 2, two long time 911 truth activists also
chose to represent their dissenting viewpoints about the movie's lack of credibility.



Please clarify where any straw men arguments are.

[New Earth]

36. those red comments

are extremely empty in substance. nice try though.

[Debunking911]

39. Like

What?

[New Earth]

40. like

most of them, which seem to be more sarcasm/opinion than actual fact-debunking.