I'm quite suprised that someone of Micheal Meacher's intelligence would have choosen Loose Change to screen to MPs. This film is a real two edged sword, it's definetly brought the whole issue to more people's attention than anything else, but it's also full of factual errors and silly, far fetched theories. Controlled demolition and the pentagon 'missile' theory are immensely damaging to the whole 911 movement in my opinion. These theories make no sense, are completly unprovable (and always will be) and are fantastic ammunition against everyone who believes 911 was an inside job.

Something like the excellent 'Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime' - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688 would have been a far more effective choice. It sticks to documented facts and on the record testimony and manages to provide an overwhelming case without ever resorting to unprovable theories or dodgy science based on compressed film clips downloaded off the internet.

I've emailed Meacher with the link above, as I really believe it would be disaster for the movement to waste this opportunity by screening a film as dubious as 'Loose Change'.

shill?

I've got nothing to do with the film, I just think it happens to be the best one I've seen on the subject because it sticks to relatively mundane checkable facts and not pseudo science or wild speculation. I really think Loose Change is just not the right film to screen to MP's and could well do more harm than good.

Got a reply from Meacher's secretary, apprently 'after consideration' he's not going ahead with the screening anyway. Wonder why he changed his mind?

Do you really believe the WTC committed suicide and preplanted explosives were not responsible for their collapse?

I don't know really.

I think it's unlikely because theres no reason or motive for it. Slamming planes into the towers was more than enough to get what they wanted. Why would they go to all the risk of getting caught setting up the towers to be demolished when they don't need to?

The real point though, is that we can't prove it and never will be able to. The evidence is gone and for every expert who supports demolition there are 10 who don't. I really believe we should concentrate on what we can prove, theres so much convincing evidence out there in the form of documents, news reports, statements and actions we don't need controlled demolition.

The paranoid side of me also suspects that the controlled demolition and the pentagon misille theories are been deliberetly encouraged and fuelled by those responsible for 911. Somewhere down the line they will then produce some definitive evidence that disproves them and the whole of the 911 truth movement will be seriously damaged.

Interesting discussion about the controlled demolition theory here - http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813619.php

the jets were just a smokescreen, felling the towers was at the heart of the diabolical hoax, I can see you've done zero research. What brought you here?

I've read millions of webpages about it and watched the film clips as that seems to be what counts as research on this subject.

Have you examined the steel? Are you a trained structural engineer? Are you an expert in demolition? Do you have high res video clips of the towers collapse unobscured by dust and smoke?

I'm not having a go as we all know we're on the same side, I just think controlled demolition and the pentagon crash are absolute dead ends because we CAN'T PROVE IT. There's also no imaginable reason why the conspirators would have done either. It defies sense and logic when what they did do, crash planes into buildings did the job perfectly. The best conspiracies are surely the simplest and least likely to go wrong?

Honestly, if we stick to the documented facts, PNAC, Dick Cheney, FBI and CIA whistlblowers, Able Danger, Peak Oil, Ptech and the actions of the Bush admin on 911 and there's a compelling case right there.

BTW I came to this forum because I admire antagonist's and bridget's work on 7/7, well researched, factual and logical!

Until you show me other buildings that spontaneously combust after a fire which started an hour earlier is dying out and footage of Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon I say your assumptions are weak. I've met many who prefer to live in denial.

Have you seen 911Eyewitness? It's on in London tonight, take yourself along and learning something.

I don't need your scientific experts to tell me the difference between a building that's being blown the f*ck up and when one burns down. NIST is a good example of scientists selling themselves like prostitutes to whoever pays them what they require to lie.

Fedor, these theories are unprovable. I'm not saying you're wrong...you can never be 100% sure, but this is a case of Occam's razor. The 911 and 77 truth movement is not about convincing ourselves of complicity, its about constructing a convincing and well documented case that we can take into the mainstream. That's why, as hard as it is, it's time to move on from controlled demolition and the Pentagon missile theory and concentrate on the massive amount of evidence that we can prove. A while ago I was convinced the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, it's a glamorous and appealing conspiracy theory, but once you get under the surface it just doesn't make any sense.

Maybe you're completly right and I'm wrong, but i know for a fact that if this ever went to court, the controlled demolition and pentagon theories wouldn't last 2 minutes, and would by association destroy our whole case. We can establish a convincing means, motive and opportunity without them.

It might be healthy to check out some of the more skeptical viewpoints just for balance:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1813619.php
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

Now i don't neccasarily agree with everything on those sites, but its extremely important from an intellectual point of view to immerse yourself in both sides of the argument

This site isn't really for 9-11 material but I must disagree with you. The collapse at virtually air-resistance freefall speed of the triple towers albeit they are supposed to have clunked through themselves, the path of max resistance, is a conclusive smoking gun, or three actually.
Have you read Prof Steven Jones and Morgan Reynolds?
Have you studied Jim Hoffman's brilliant scientifically tight site:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net ?

THE IDEA THAT THE PLANES COULD HAVE DESTROYED 1 AND 2 IS WELL DISPROVED ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS.

THERE ARE SMOKING GUNS, THREE BLOODY HUGE ONES, AND COMMON SENSE AND FIRST IMPRESSIONS REINFORCE SIMPLE PHYSICS!
if not enough 'experts' are yet coming out against the official story, that just goes to show why we should be chary of over-reliance on 'experts'. But in any case most Physicists and Building engineers are keen to keep out of the argument and certainly are NOT lining up 9 to 1 in support of the official nonsense.

What are the numerous grounds?

The evidence that the towers fell at freefall speed is extremely inconclusive, the fact is you just can't tell on the videos because of the massive cloud of dust and smoke.

However, this video clearly shows that the top part of the tower crumbled at the point of impact and fell onto the bottom part - http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...r_collapse.mpeg
and this clearly shows a large part of the core survived the intial collapse - http://www.indybay.org/uploads/wtc_core.mpg

This directly contradicts the idea that the towers completly fell to the ground at freefall speed.

Anyway I'm extermely loathe to get into a debate about this because I'm not a qualified physicist or structural engineer and I'm guessing you aren't either. As I keep saying, we can't win on this speculation. But we can win on the well documented evidence.

Dear Tegan,

I am sorry to inform you of some terrible news. The WTC complex controlled demolition has already been documented as fact. This should not be in debate anymore. I am of course referring to the owner's (Larry Silverstein) admission in a taped interview that WTC 7 was taken down on 9-11 by a controlled demolition. Further, the crimping effect of the demolition is visible to the MK1 eyeball, with or without his admission of guilt.

In case you do not follow the logic of proof here, then may I point out that it takes weeks of planning in advance to wire buildings for demolition, and not after mere hours of a "surprise attack" terrorist strike. Once again, Silverstein has admitted on tape, it was intentionally demolished.

So, aside from this "non fact" as you call it, ontop of this, there are countless testimonies by firefighters and other survivors in the area who heard (and felt) a *series of explosions* before the North and South towers came down, not to mention the visible evidence of the explosive ejection plumes caught on video for the world to see. All this and more I am not even going to bother mentioning as it's old news and has been proven as *solid evidence of a conspiracy of hiding the truth*. What really happened? Maybe we will never know, but what we DO know is that the official story is a blatant and arrogant lie and media cover-up of KEY facts. A "conspiracy theory", if you will.

Your point of discussion on "why would they do it" and "it makes no sense to me" and "it's not logical" is not helping the issue for the victims and families, indeed you are doing an injustice to humanity by clouding the issue, intentionally or otherwise.

I'm sorry, but time-wasting rhetorical questions such as these are quite simply akin to asking the exact same questions to a demented serial killer who is going about stabbing you in the chest, asking him "what reason do you have? It's not logical. It makes no sense to me." I am sorry to inform you of another fact, the sad fact of life is that not everything will be logical or make sense to you in this world, especially when it comes from killers, psychopaths, satanists and mass-murdering madmen theives from The Order of Death. As a matter of fact there are several motives for demolishing the buildings, not least, destroying the evidence, as you will no doubt discover in due time in your continued research on this matter. You will find there are numerous, sickening motives.

Further, if indeed I really need to say anymore... anyone who is informed on the facts we do know, already knows that the whole Pentagon issue is a moot point. It is insulting and highly disrespectful of you to the victims to even bring the matter up, as the mass media continually revel in doing. I am sure that it is quite possible that flight 77 hit it, I don't know, and honestly I don't really care, for the reason that the MAIN key issue of 9-11 should be the focus on Silverstein's admission of guilt on tape. Perhaps now you can see why the Pentagon question is constantly brought up by the media, to steer the focus AWAY from the MAIN issues of 9-11. It may be easy for some people to be successfully brainwashed by the media like the rest of the sheep who would much rather be baaing and debating about The Da Vinci Code or Big Brother than real, serious issues about the world we are actually living in.

Aside from the documented admission of guilt by Silverstein, the very fact that there are always "drills and excercises" going on at the exact same time as these "terrorist" attacks... this should be main, major news headlines. Why isn't it? Clear evidence of paid media silence. The focus should now be on lifting this silence more than anythng else and go from there.

Indeed, are you saying that this "makes everything alright"? I mean it's almost laughable that this is not being debated as another serious main issue... the story of the Century... Visor Consultants running an "exercise" of simultaneous explosions at the EXACT same time, at the EXACT same stations. Do the mathematics of the odds of THAT happening from a "surprise attack by terrorists" and think again. And on 9-11... and in Madrid... etc etc.

If I need to explain this; these so-called excercises are the *plausible deniability*. The "cover story" for the "good" people in MI5 and the NSA who inadvertently pick up the transmissions from the "bad" people in MI6 and the CIA or whomever may be carrying out the Op in question. They report it in and flag it for analysis. Later they ask, what happened to my report on the bombings? We know who they are! "oh that was just part of the excercise, don't worry about it". Let that one sink in for a minute and wake up to the reality of the horror we are living in today.

It's almost laughable that you seem to shrug reality and solid facts like these off as "conspiracy theories"... laughing it off and chuckling with glee as if these "non facts" mean nothing, throwing it in the face of the dead victims, when in fact the official line from the police and so-called government is the most ludicrous and laughable conspiracy theory there is. It's a complete joke. Only it is no laughing matter and I am outraged it has been allowed to happen all over again. and again... and again.... all you're doing is feeding your own brainwashing living in your sugar coated dream world, ready to put yourself in the firing line of the government madmen minions and await the slaughter of the next "terrorist" bombing, while the survivors are duly enslaved in a nightmarish nazi police state for "security reasons".

The point is then, to not endlessly debate the whys or hows, but to get this media blackout on these solid facts LIFTED, to get these solid facts out into the OPEN. Good reporters and journalists still exist to expose this, and it WILL come out. Charlie Sheen is valiantly attempting to help do this while the mass controlled media are salivating with glee trying to discredit and attack him with one ludicrous personal/sexual accusation after the next, but who else is putting their carrers, nay lives, on the line in the UK??

It appears that it must be difficult for certain people to believe that governments are capable of killing (aka sacrificing on the altar of the New World Order) its "own" population? May I finish by suggesting that you please actually study some history books and you might learn that this is hardly the first time... I have said all I am going to say to you on this matter. Besides, the polls speak for themselves and word is getting out and people are beginning to wake up - you will find yourself in the minority now if you think these attacks, 9-11 and 7-7, were NOT engineered, aided and abetted by our so-called governments.

May everyone who has been affected by these sick heinious crimes get the justice you deserve, and get it soon. Or do we simply sit back in on-looking apathy, time-waste and continue to cloud the issue, and merely hope that when the likes of (Sir Ian) Blair and Bush, the liars, their slug-like media minions, the scum of the Enron corporations, psychos and bully boy louts encouraged to join the police forces, the conspirators and their puppet masters eventually die, and attempt to join their victims in the afterlife, they will instead find themselves burning in Hell for their crimes against all humanity?

The emperor has no clothes.

Peace hope and love,

H.

--
www.prisonplanet.com
www.infowars.com
www.bravocharlie911.com
www.letsroll911.org

Let me get this straight. I believe people in the US government, intellegince service and military industrial complex conspired together to orchestrate 911. There's a massive amount of evidence that points to this. I just don't believe they either did, or needed to, blow the towers up or crash a missile at the pentagon.

I agree with a lot of your points about terror drills and so forth, this is exactly the sort of thing we should be concentrating on. And you make a brilliant point about the media constantly bringing up the pentagon crash as a way of descrediting and ridiculing the whole movement. That's exactly why we have to focus on documented provable facts, not speculation and pseudo-science.

This isn't true Hornblower. The WTC 7 remark by Larry Silverstein that they made the decision to pull is widely quoted, and the idea that this term means controlled demolition is accepted without question. But when you actually examine it, there no evidence to suggest that the term 'pull it' is industry jargon for controlled demolition. Can you find any other reference to 'pull' been a term for controlled demolition apart from in this case?


Theres a good counter case here to the WTC7 theories and its worth reading at least to provide a bit of balance:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:XThIw...lient=firefox-a

And yes there are lots of people who reported hearing explosions and bombs, but unfortently these reports are spread out right from the first impact to after the towers collapsed. The explosions in a controlled demolition aren't spread out randomly over hours. Isnt it more likely that these reports of explosions are things in the building been destroyed due to the fire and the impact? Windows smashing, gas mains cracking, water tanks been crushed?

This link is very telling in that many people reported hearing and seeing explosions when this collapsed but there was no controlled demolition either.

http://www.911myths.com/html/proving_contr...demolition.html

Keeping an open mind works both ways.

This thread should be deleted, it doesn't belong and is really just an irritant.

Of course the Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and of course a missile hit the pentagon, these theories make sense and have been proved: see eg Thierry Meyssan's 'The Big Lie' re the Pentagon, and David Ray Griffin 'The New Pearl Harbour' for the Towers' demolition. In contrast, Peak Oil is rather conjectural.
Fortunately, Meacher is now going ahead with his showing of Loose Change video at the House of commons this June, its the best video on the subject - and No. 1 on Google's top 100 video list. One regrets that someone on this thread wrote to Meacher trying to persuade him not to show it.

Astro,

I didn't write to Meacher to pursuade him not to show it, I wrote to suggest he shows another film that is based on facts and not nonsensical, badly reseatrched theories.

This is just an assertion and has neither been proven, nor makes sense.

Just ask yourself some simple questions:

1) Why would they go to the risk of controlled demolition when crashing the aircraft into the towers was more than enough to get what they want?
2) If the towers were brought down by controlled demolition why were explosions reported over the space of several hours? What explosions were they?
3) They had a hijacked plane full of people and wanted to crash something into the pentagon. Why on earth would they hatch a ludicrously complicated and risky plot of somehow swapping the plane with a missle or a drone, making the plane and all its passengers disappear, then crashing the missle or drone into the pentagon, when thery could have just crashed the plane into it instead? And Why do all the witnesses say they saw a passenger jet crash into the Pentagon? Are they all part of the conspiracy?
4) If it ever went to court and you based your case on these two issue, do you think you'd win? Despite having no physical evidence, unprovable theories and 99% of the scientific opinion against you?

I think the nonsense in Loose Change is seriously undermining the 911 truth movement and we don't need any of it to prove conspiracy.

So what do we make of this?

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

I would say it's the 'best WTC demolition flick' ;->

What about all those who heard and felt bombs explode around the WTC?
A heck of a lot more people verify the WTC being blown the f*ck up than witnessed Flight 77 plough into the Pentagram.

http://www.gallerize.com/153%20WINDY%20TOW...9-11%20Four.htm

Malaysia Sun
Mathaba

Although I do believe that controlled demolitions were used at the WTC, I don't see such witness statements as very reliable 'evidence' - given the circumstances you can think of numerous explanations for those sounds, and I prefer more scientific evidence.

It could be a bomb, but for example it could just as well be gas lines which explode due to the fires.

Would you know the difference hearing those sounds, not being an expert in bombs, and being in the very unusual, hectic and traumatic situation on 9/11 at ground zero ?

I don't think I would....

I've seen footage of some New York firemen describing the sound of bombs going off in the building. They'd know what they were talking about. And what about WT7? Any explanation as to why it suddenly collapsed when it hadn't even been hit by a plane?

Suspecta

Why do you want me to explain, as I said I also believe controlled demolitions were used, including WTC7.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5277732.stm

Hard to see the plane actually hit the north face of the North Tower from the South Tower. But there is an eyewitness for a "plane".

Be your own 911 'eye-witness' and use your ears too.

Go here, download and watch all the footage of the second hit, particularly those filmed from the ground and in which the background activity can be heard and/or seen.

Notice at what point the reactions and background noises of the crowds break into hysteria. It seems to me that the hysteria only kicks in AFTER the explosions occur, rather than, as one might think, as they witnessed a plane flying towards one of the WTC towers.

This clip is a good example. Notice also the huge 'rip' that tears through the building half way down the building, many stories from the initial explosions, and which starts ripping open at around 4 seconds into the clip, some 3 seconds after the initial explosions.

Anyone know what the three missile like devices that fly out of the opposite side of the building, as if they'd just gone through butter and not steel-reinforced concrete, might be?

Edit: Another example of what I mean. Grab WTC - 2nd Crash - 01.mpeg - the plane appears at 0:14 seconds into the interview, giving five whole seconds in which the assembled masses can watch a plane fly towards the towers before it hits at 0:19, yet it isn't until 0:21, two seconds after the hit and a whole seven seconds after the plane's first appearance in this footage that someone thinks to say, "Oh shit!"

For anyone interested...

I've just seen a trailer for this on News 24. Alex Jones's voice can be heard.

Oh dear!

This has been issued by the 9/11 Truth Campaign (UK & Ireland)

From the Gareth Ancier link (published on Wednesday February 14, 2007, at MediaGuardian.co.uk):

A certain Mr Webster Griffin Tarpley is Phi Beta Kappa so I can't see being Phi Beta Kappa as being a hinderance in asking questions about the official version of 11/9.

However, if you wanted to run both horses in the two-horse race that everyone has become so accustomed to in Britamerica, you'd have Tarpley [PBK] on one side singing about False Flags and Gareth Ancier [PBK] on the other playing the official story line.

What's the betting that news of Robert Cottage being an ardent Alex Jones fan will materialise at some point in the next few days?

*old news* delete ;->

We got the 'hit-piece' rubbish.

We need an independent uncorrupted investigative news channel airing on one of the spare freeview slots.

Do we have a multi-millionaire here?

Hang on, I'll just check my lotto...

:rolleyes:

I haven't read through the report yet but 'A Review of the Temporary Shoring Used to Stabilize the Pentagon After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001' looks interesting.

moved to here where CD of wtc7 was being discussed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groups_and_in...account_of_9/11

Trailer: Loose Change Final Cut (Coming this summer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB1P2Jt0xpM

"The only things we are afraid of are APATHY and SILENCE!"

This is pretty powerful stuff. Crank your speakers, go here to see the videos and get a little faith-based hellfire in your bellies:



http://wewillnotbesilenced.com/

Powerful stuff indeed.

Gives a sense of hope that good will triumph over evil especially after listening to that bastard John Bolton on R4's Today programme this morning harping on about Iran. If you didn't hear it you can listen again on the Today programme's website (about 1hr 34min) or pm me for the clip (<3mb).

The Third Stage

A powerfull collection of short mainstream media and independent film clips on the evolution of 9/11 skepticism.