Anyone see the movie Mike Malloy was talking about last night?

[LeftNYC]

Loose Change?

[Roland99]

1. I've seen it. Raises some very interesting points and facts but...

has a fair amount of speculation and some tricks used to lead the viewer into thinking certain things happened the way the filmmakers want you to think.

[LeftNYC]

2. Im gonna watch it now. There is a link on Google...nt

[tech3149]

3. I downloaded it a few days ago

Between that and the Power of Nightmares, I can't see how anyone trusts this government.

[stepnw1f]

4. I Posted It Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x69895#69897

[LeftNYC]

5. Oh thanks...

Not sure what to believe anymore...

[stepnw1f]

6. Some Stuff I'm Not Sure About

But really good questions and factoids are coming out, that paint a different story from what the mainstream media told all of us. Too many holes...

[LeftNYC]

7. I am still looking at it. Very scary stuff...nt

[0007]

8. No, but I will. Do you remember the name tag Mike Malloy

put on Alberto Gonzales last night. I'm going crazy trying to remember. please enlighten me. Something like, "Okamoto"

[LeftNYC]

9. I only heard the beginning of his show and then went looking for this film

I couldnt resist, the way he was talking about it. I am not sure how Malloy is going to continue on Air America. I hope they dont but I can see him getting yanked because of what he has been saying lately.

[0007]

10. dang! Anyone else?

[MuseRider]

12. Torquemada?

Tor·que·ma·da Audio pronunciation of "torquemada" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrk-mäd, tôrk-mäthä), Tomás de. 1420-1498.

Spanish Dominican friar who was appointed grand inquisitor by Pope Innocent VIII (1487). Under his authority, thousands of Jews, suspected witches, and others were killed or tortured during the Spanish Inquisition.

[LeftNYC]

13. Yeah, he's always calling him that

Thank god for Mike...

[MuseRider]

14. It makes perfect sense

and yes, thank god for Mike. :hi:

[LeftNYC]

15. He asks the questions that no one else with a show will ask..nt

[MuseRider]

16. I wish I was able to listen

more often. He is pretty brave considering these times and I really appreciate it. Having lived without anything but RW hate radio my entire adult life I am so glad I bought my XM and can listen.

[LeftNYC]

17. Good move...I listen to the podcast at work

people think I'm nuts I think...Soon though AA is going to make you pay for it...

[MuseRider]

18. Nuts is good! n/t

[LeftNYC]

20. Nuts is great...! nt

[MuseRider]

30. And good for you too!

If I was not nuts I would probably be in an asylum by now.

[orleans]

86. do you ever download shows from whiterosesociety.org?

ben burch carries mike's shows and randi's and more.

[0007]

21. Thank you, thank you and thank you for the

history on "Torquemada"

I now believe in Reincarnation

Alberto "Torquemada" Gonzales -

[MuseRider]

29. No problem

I just pasted from dictionary.com. The first time I heard Malloy call him that I about bust a gut laughing because it was the perfect description.

[LeftNYC]

11. I like the music in the film...nt

[stepnw1f]

24. Sounds Like DJ Shadow or Spooky

I I happen know from looking at the credits that it is neither.

[LeftNYC]

26. Yeah, I love Shadow...

and it sounds just like him...

[LeftNYC]

19. Watching this is making me feel terrible...

If even part of this is true, we live in a very scary world...

[MadisonProgressive]

22. I have the DVD - Great movie!

[LeftNYC]

23. Im afraid to admit that I believe some of it...nt

[MadisonProgressive]

31. It's not whether you believe or not

it's whether it raises enough questions and shows enough inconsistencies to warrant further investigation. And I say YES!

[orleans]

87. where did you get the dvd? i watched it on the google video

but i would like a copy to watch on the tv.

what is the website to order it? i forgot--i went on it after malloy was talking about it but it said they were out of dvds. and now i forgot the website.

is there some other place to get it? like barnes & noble?

[Snivi Yllom]

25. amateur conspiracy garbage

been there done that stuff that has easily been debunked

only watch it if your are crazy enough to believe the WTC was brough dopwn with demolition charges, and that the planes that hit the WTC were not airliners.

[LeftNYC]

27. Link to debunking this film imparticularly...

Is there one? I am open to hearing everything.

[Snivi Yllom]

34. link here

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

[Roland99]

37. So, one guy's opinion is "debunking"?

:eyes:


I do agree that the filmmakers used some clever methods to get the viewer thinking along certain lines but that site does nothing to debunk anything other than to say, "Unh-uh".

[MadisonProgressive]

42. The 'debunker' also says:

First, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosive charges. WTC1-2 literally exploded in mid-air before hitting the ground while WTC7 was demolished by a classic lower energy implosion. I recommend Jim Hoffman’s excellent site, www.911review.com, as well as the photos on the back of his co-authored book, Waking Up From Our Nightmare. One key to understanding the official hoax of WTC1 and 2 is to juxtapose official accounts of its flimsy or non-existent core with photos of the core 47 massive steel box columns held together by massive interlocking grid work, and connected to the peripheral columns by massive beams and girders as well as the lighter-duty trusses that supported the flooring. This is what gives the lie to the pancake theory –- even if the floors collapsed the core would still stand, or demonstrate terrific resistance to collapse instead of nearly free-fall descent. Again, though not definitive, the core being demolished first then makes sense of a video mounted on a tripod, focused on one of the towers, shaking several seconds before the building’s collapse (when the base is detonated); and again though not definitive, makes sense of a video taken from a helicopter photographing a WTC collapse that is rocked by propagating shock waves that would not occur from a simple collapse. Some of these facts are better presented in a print and still medium, but any video of the subject that wants to be effective should use them.

[Snivi Yllom]

49. you got it wrong

Perhaps if you had an engineering background you could understand that the demolition theories are pure bunk.

The structure spanning between the perimeter tube structure and the central core in the WTC towers was very lightweight construction, not 'massive beams and girders'. The floor slabs were lightweight bar joists.

The assumption that the core would stand by itself without the perimeter tube is false. The perimeter of the building formed a structural tube designed primarily the massive resist wind forces (lateral loads) upon the building. However, this system is reliant on the decking/floorslabs to keep the perimeter tube from buckling (which is why the building collapsed). The interior core served only to support gravity forces. Without the perimeter tube of the building to resist lateral forces, the interior core slumped under the forces of collapsing floorplates and it's own weight.

I personally witnessed the second tower collapse and witnessed the ragged interior core stay standing a for a few seconds prior to its collapse.

There is zero credible evidence for explosive demolition of WTC1, 2 or 7.

[jschurchin]

67. No Molly he did not.

Perhaps you need to go back and read your link. Those thoughts about demolition are from the author of the article that you linked to. Don't take my word for it though, go back and read the entire article you linked to.

Kind of amateurish sir to link a article without reading the whole thing.

[MadisonProgressive]

79. That's funny that she uses the same article to

make her point, when in reality the article disagrees with her premise!

[jschurchin]

81. Bwahahahahahaha

Yeah, I know but, shhhh I don't think she understands that.

[Maven]

83. If you think this is the case,

then perhaps you can explain to us how it DID happen. Do you really think that one jetliner apiece, each hitting at a different, off-center spot, caused BOTH buildings to fall symmetrically into themselves, and at near-freefall speed? Is there any engineering basis to support that scenario? Or any factual precedent, for that matter?

The problem with off-hand dismissals such as yours is that you treat the official story as the "baseline" and only scrutinize other proposals as contrived efforts, whereas an even-handed approach would scrutinize both scenarios, co-equal in their credibility. How do you know Osama bin Laden did it? Because George Bush told you so?

[Bushwick Bill]

40. Keep an eye out.

For those gatekeepers.
http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html
;-)

[Roland99]

28. Nowhere did it suggest the planes that hit the WTC weren't airliners

The Pentagon, however....

[Snivi Yllom]

33. Yes it did. It implied UA 175 was a military plane that fired rockets

Here's an ad for Loose Change saying no commercial ariliners



Among the stupid conspiracies:

-UA175 was a military plan, not a passenger liner with a mysterious 'pod'
-just before impact the UA175 flight fired a rocket into the South Tower
-UA77 did not exist, the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a much smaller plane
-Flight 93 phonecalls were faked


Total crapola.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

[Roland99]

36. It was a 757/727/whatever. We've all seen the videos.

The film suggested some sort of missile was fired from under the plane toward the WTC just prior to impact which would suggest an altered commercial airliner.

[Snivi Yllom]

46. which is completely insanse as a theory

Loose Change clearly implies that it was a MILITARY AIRCRAFT, not a commercial airliner.

Shame on them.

[Roland99]

55. No it doesn't. I think you're thinking of the Pentagon

They suggested in the film that a small military jet could have been what crashed into the Pentagon.

[Snivi Yllom]

59. no, Loose change implies its a military aircraft, not a commerical liner

they also put forth the kook theory that the Pentagon was hit by a small plane or a cruise missile

NUTS

[liam_laddie]

38. WTC 7...

I've read that there were large Diesel fuel tanks in WTC-7 to run emergency
generators in the area. Probably in the below-ground levels, maybe 130,000 gallons.
This burned for hours, eventually causing structural failure. BTW, Rudy Giulani's
disaster control office was on the eighth floor. And supposedly, a lot of gold
from NY's Federal Reserve Bank was stored in a basement vault. Don't know
how much of this can be verified, but I don't buy any of the demolition tales...
Any links to video of the actual collapse of WTC-7? It was seven hours after
the twin towers went down.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Snivi Yllom]

47. you dont see any footage from 9/11

in my opinion they should show it all the time

[rman]

52. the collapse of the towers has been shown more then a few times,

not so for the collapse of wtc7

[jschurchin]

65. Just to clarify a little....

"I've read that there were large Diesel fuel tanks in WTC-7 to run emergency generators in the area. Probably in the below-ground levels, maybe 130,000 gallons."

Actually there were 4 tanks, all under the loading ramp on the east side of the building on the ground level. They held 12,000, 12,000, 6,000 and 6,000 gallons. Totaling 36,000 gallons of diesel.

"BTW, Rudy Giulani's
disaster control office was on the eighth floor."

Actually it was on the 23rd floor, and the entire floor had upgrades to protect the occupants being it was the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) for New York City.

I am not being a dick, just giving you the correct information.

[dchill]

60. Once again, you have stunned me...

with your persuasive polytechnic jargon...

"Total crapola."

I am convinced. How naive I was to have ever thought that the towers were destroyed by strategically placed explosive charges. And what did I think? Was WTC7 supposed to have been hit by a third plane that just didn't happen to make it? Well, I still think it's more likely than the "Airplanes made them all fall down" - AKA "Scientific" - theory.

Total crapola is in the eye of the beholder. Just imagine the argument that must have gone on between the morning and late afternoon when it was finally decided to bring building seven down - without an excuse that would even come close to holding water. Do yourself a favor and just imagine it.

[rman]

62. to much "crapola" and "stupid" in your line of argumentation

thinly veiled ad hominem, if you ask me.
which would be a violation of the 9-11 forum rules.

[jschurchin]

74. Don't all engineers use..........

such scientific terms like, stupid and crapola? Oh, no, wait a minute he KNOWS a couple engineers, he did not say he is am be one. My bag.

You know what, I just thought of something. If he is an engineer, lord help the people who's project's he is working on.

[AZCat]

84. Not all, but a good majority of the ones of my aquaintance...

have salted many a conversation with terms that are on par with "stupid" and "crapola" (or worse).

Some branches of engineering are strongly resisting any departure from the "blue collar" image that for so long enshrouded them, regardless of any actual transition in the nature of their work. "Earthy" language, IMO, is one way of fighting the pressure to become more "white collar" (ties are anathema too).

[MadisonProgressive]

32. If you don't see the possibility of demolition

(see WTC 7) then you just aren't being realistic.

[Snivi Yllom]

35. no

Just using my brain, my good sense, and my professional training to understand that what happened was not a conspiracy.

[MadisonProgressive]

41. Well, your good sense ain't so good.

[Snivi Yllom]

48. question

Have you discussed the issue personally with some of the best structural engineers in the world?

I have, and they think the controlled demolition theories are nuts.

[rman]

53. can you prove that you have discussed it

with some of the best structural engineers in the world?

[pauldp]

57. Excellent! Then you must be able to tell me this.

What is it about the collapse footage of building 7 that is so clearly not a controlled demolition? Perhaps you could point out a couple of things in the video that are inconsistent with controlled demo? Can you find something? Anything? There must be SOMETHING you could point out since you've discussed it with so many structural engineers.

Remember when FEMA was done investigating they said the cause of the collapse of 7 was "unknown at this time". Then of course all of the steel from the building was destroyed.

So until you explain the difference between the videos of the collapse WTC7 and a controlled demo, I'd say we have an unexplained
collapse that looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition. Now tell me again how it is nuts to hypothesize that something might
be exactly what it looks like?

[Snivi Yllom]

58. where were the?

You don't think you can just blast columns with 33" deep webs apart with a few pounds of explosives? You have to prep them ahead of time by partially cutting thorugh with welding torches and/or using intricate wiring to ensure the columns/beams are desroyed in the right order to achieve the right effect. Where are the witnesses for the demolition crews? Huge buildings like WTC7 would have taken months to wire for demolition. Thw WTC1 & 2, maybe a full year. There would have been huge shaped charges and wiring all over the place, impossible to conceal.

Your assumption that it must be a controlled demolition because you have seen some buildings demolished in a manner that looks vaguely similar to the WTC7 tower falling is flawed. Frankly it did not look like a controlled demolitiona s there was no explosion or dust cloud indicatove of a controlled demolition. There is no footage showing any demolition explosions for any of the 9/11 towers. NONE. Where was the footage of windows being blown out across entire floors?

This is what it looks like when you bring down a steel framed building. In this case a 23 story building.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807


It took 4 months to wire this building, and they partially cut many of the columns with welding torches ahead of time.

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."

"At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil."


another steel building, not the huge explosions form the sides


another tower, this time concrete, but note the huge demolition charge explosions

[pauldp]

61. So let me get this straight

You say the collapse footage of 7 does not look like a controlled demolition for the following reasons:
-there was no explosion or dust cloud
-the footage does not show windows being blown out across entire floors.

was there something else that I missed?

if you go here:

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

and look at Southwark Towers implosion in Philly (bottom row third from left) you'll notice some horizontal puffs or squibs (not unlike the ones seen at the WTC) and then the buildings just drop. No big explosion. There are other similar implosions on that page as well.

Plumes of smoke shooting out of the building can be seen from several angles as WTC7 collapses.
A huge cloud billows from the bottom of WTC7 as it falls. Notice the large puffs of smoke at the top as the buiding falls.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse.mpg

[Snivi Yllom]

68. they dont look anything like what you see in a controlled demolition.

Are you trying to tell me those tiny puffs brought down a 47 and 110 story buildings?

[pauldp]

76. So I'm to believe they are not explosions why?

Because you said so? They are not tiny, they are massive - at the top of the building.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
The NBC news camera video.



Explain to me how they differ from explosive clouds?

I guess I'm also supposed to believe the following cloud billowing out of the North Tower at high speed is not
from an explosion because you said it is not? Again explain to me how it is different from an explosive cloud.

[petgoat]

64. Radio Control Obviates Your Intricate Wiring

And the great care invested in dropping a demolished building is because
the demolition company must protect its credibility or die, and must satisfy
its insurance company.

With respect to WTC7 neither the demolishers' credibility nor their insurance
standing was at stake. If they accidentally brought down the next building,
the only risk was that it would motivate closer scrutiny.

Thou dost protest too much.

[Snivi Yllom]

69. NYFD radios did not work in the WTC towers

Plus, you still have to install radios and the explosives which is not a concealable endeavour. Radio demolition is dangerous due to the possibility of accidental explosion.

[petgoat]

71. "not a concealable endeavour"

Suspended ceilings in modern office buildings offer ample opportunity for concealment.

Elevator shafts offer ample opportunity for concealment.

Utility floors offer opportunities for concealment.

"Radio demolition is dangerous due to the possibility of accidental explosion."

Use of insensitive receivers with very powerful transmitters would eliminate the
possibility of accidental triggering. Use of pulse-code recognition protocols would
also reduce the chances of false triggering (and allow finely modulated control sequences).

You guys who say everything is impossible are suffering from willful failures of imagination.

[jschurchin]

73. Your headline really bothers me.

What exactly are you implying there, that the NYFD radio frequency would be used for something other than communication?

[dchill]

66. I'm going to pretend that this is DKos...

and give you a "4.Excellent" for this post. ;)

[MadisonProgressive]

63. You are lying.

[Snivi Yllom]

70. fraid not

In fact, I see two of the best high rise structural engineers at a Christmas Party once a year. Just talked to them again in December.

Give it up, you are outmatched.

[petgoat]

72. "I see best high rise structural engineers at a Christmas Party"

So what?

Do you think people prominent in their professions are going to go around
making controversial statements to people at cocktail parties, people who
may then go around misquoting them? Of course not.

Their negative answers to your questions are meaningless.

[Snivi Yllom]

75. i'll believe the experts I know

you believe the wacko lunatic conspiracy theorists

[MadisonProgressive]

78. That's how much you know! There are very respected

structural engineers and demolition specialists that say this must have been controlled demolition. But you live in your lala land.

[petgoat]

85. " the experts I know"

Ask them if they have ever considered the explosive demolition hypothesis,
and why they rejected it.

If they say "No," and "Because it's crazy" they are not scientists.

[MadisonProgressive]

77. You are no match for me lady. You're verynarrow minded.

[MadisonProgressive]

80. Bullshit

You can say that all you want but nobody will believe you because we know the truth.

[orleans]

88. gotta question for you.

please see my post at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x70673

i went googling for this logo and this is what i came up with. please let me know what you think. (and read the description of the laboratory--it is almost appropriate for a cargo plane into a tower)

[rman]

43. I wonder what Molly Ivins would think about that.

[Bushwick Bill]

39. Edition 2 Streaming Here.

I didn't watch part 1, but I guess it had some pod theories which the writer thought should be removed. Here is part 2.
http://www.rynearson.com/

[Popol Vuh]

45. Yes I've seen it

And if you don't mind, may I recommend watching my other favorites:

• 911 In Plane Site
  
• The Truth and Lies of 911
  
• Orwell Rolling in His Grave
  
• What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy
  
• JFK II (the Bush connection)

If you haven't already seen any of these ones, I know you won't be disappointed if you do watch them.

[rman]

50. thanks,

i didn't know about "What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy",
will check it out.

btw the correct title of the 'orwell' docu is "Orwell Rolls In His Grave"


Also recommended:
"Life and Debt"
www.lifeanddebt.org

and

"911 eyewitness"
www.911eyewitness.com

[rman]

51. selfdelete

[zulchzulu]

54. Certainly some good theories to make you think...

The Pentagon attack, the way the WTC towers fell so quickly, cell phone calls from 30,000 feet, Flight 77 questions...much to think about and I'd like to see the "debunking" on some of the issues.

It is a "must-see" imho.

[veracity]

56. Loose Change available here...

...as a premium for a donation to http://tvnewslies.org

Click on http://tvnewslies.org/cart

Then look at the 9/11 DVD's available on the site.
Scroll down to LOOSE CHANGE..

Link on site to preview....

It's a VERY important documentary...and should be seen and shared.

[undeterred]

82. Actually I just watched it Tuesday night after following a link from DU

I think its a good summary of all the theories on the different aspects of what happened on September 11. I think the official cover story for September 11 is far fetched and unbelievable. Loose change is going to be shocking only to those who haven't looked into it at all. Everything in that film has been discussed in this forum.