I just found this today, from the same site as the ‘Screw Loose Change’ video. It’s another excellent document debunking the copnspiracy theories.
Some good info. Thx Josh, I read through parts of it (not all, because i dont have the time) and a lot of it is good info, and I took it in and accept it… but he didn’t address all aspects of the conspiracies, I guess only the parts that he could answer to.
And the part about WTC7, he has good info on that however the fact that the media didn’t even mention that this building had been destroyed, is just bizaar. Ok the main attention is to the main 2 towers and the pentagon, but you would think that they would at least mention that another World Trade Center bulding had also collapsed.
Instead they didn’t mention it because it was not important? Doesn’t sound right. Every bit of information, everything that occurred, is extremely important and should all have been stated as it happened, or at least mentioned after.
TO THIS DAY none of the major US networks have mentioned it… Why not? A world trade center building was destroyed, not important? Even if the local post office building was destroyed, blown up for any reason, it would be big news, but wait, world trade center building number 7? Ahh not relevant to even mention since our main focus is on the twin towers…
Anyway, im not saying that this particular one is definitely a consipracy, I am saying I don’t know, I don’t know why they didn’t mention it, and the reasons provided so far are not enough to make me 100% believe… It is still just a strange occurance.
There’s also a few other things i don’t agree with or think havn’t been addressed, or talked about properly, but this author has a lot of good info he has obviously done a respectable job in taking a lot of evidence before talking his mind.
Well I don’t know about the American media, but here in Canada it was reported. I watched coverage on it on two different major stations, the CBC and CTV, however I’ve gotta say I find it hard to believe that it wasn’t covered. Are you sure absolutley no network looked WTC 7?
I’m sure some TV network covered the collapse of WTC7. Stranger, unless you have a prestigious source for that info, or you have spent months on end sitting in front of every report major news networks have done on 9/11, you have no place making that claim. That seems outragous to me.
havn’t heard anything myself and if its been said then im sorry I missed it.
I do recall though someone speaking out about this at a protest who stated it had not been talked of by the media and that it is suspecious, the fact that they didn’t give an investigation as to why that occurred…
just what i heard… maybe i over analysed,
tonight loose change 2nd edition gets aired on dutch national television. Here in the media in the news, people have been talking about the conspiracy theories, and trying to see what’s true about it and what not. They have been showing the collapsing towers and the explosions, and the supposed plane that hit the pentagon already in other talk shows.
Well people! Round here, it’s Septemeber 11th. I haven’t seen any thing new about the 911 theories on tv, but heard that so many diffrent things were supposed to be released today. Has anyone seen or heard anything?
Speaking of which, last night the CBC played two documentries about 9/11 last night. The first about the events leading to 9/11 and the second about how the workers at ground zero are experiencing health problems because of the environment they were working in. I only got to see the first one and the last 10 minutes of the second one, but after watching the first one I’m having even more trouble with the fact that people are still believing the stuff in Loose Change. What I mean is, just watch Loose Change and then research this stuff, and you’ll see how many errors there are, it’s almost mind blowing 
Anyways Q I’m happy that this movie will be played. I believe that if more people watch it, it’ll inspire everyone to go and research this for themselves so they can get to the bottom of things, because dis-information helps no one, especially in a case like this.
Atheist:
I have already mentioned in this thread that the pro-official story material out there has proved to be much stronger than I originally thought (I actually linked to 911myths at one point). I’ve re-examined my beliefs with regard 911 and, although I’m not yet in favour of the official theory, I am much less certain with regards what happened. But back to the specifics:
re: the collapses
I accept the analysis of the “squibs” and, to some degree, the points you make with regard concrete pulverisation. That video footage does seem to suggest the expulsions were caused by air pressure, and I’m not sure what happens when you drop concrete from that kind of height.
But at the end of the day the key features of the collapse still don’t add up for me. I know you are claiming they were slower than freefall, but they were still exceptionally fast collapses. In addition to that, they followed the path of most resistance. And, of course, they were total. I have since seen a documentary about a small group of survivors who emerged from the rubble, and they were mentioning that some of the support beams were cut (the show was in no way related to the conspiracy theories though).
So the collapses are still suspicious to me. But I take your points on board. I realise now that some of the evidence conspiracy theorists use is not as strong as it first appears to be.
I’ve recently flown for the first time and the experience added to my scepticism with regard the efficiency with which the hijackers hit their targets.
Basically my stance here has shifted from “9/11 was an inside job… and I have the proof!!” to “9/11 smells incredibly fishy to me… but proof is hard to come by”
Your interpretation of the “squibs” I can possibly go with, but there would have been huge resistance to the falling floors from the undamaged lower floors.
To be honest I’m sceptical of the whole thing, the point of how the planes were caused to impact the buildings.
Anyway, it’s a big patchwork because, as I’m British, I’m following the British counter-terrosism situation very closely. One overlap is with regard the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI?). One terrorism suspect here in the uk alleges that they have been setting up training facilities for terrorists, and he has ceased answering questions about them due to possible danger to his family. The connection to 9/11? The Pakistani ISI (or someone associated) wired money to Mo Atta pre-911. This is on record, excuse lack of citation. And yet there is no attack on Pakistan by the US.
While on the topic, do you have any arguments with regards the events pre-9/11 such as the above mentioned wiring of money?
I’m not stooping to the level of persisting with 911 conspiracy claims just because I don’t like the Bush administration, I do genuinely think there’s something wrong with the official version of 911. But you guys have certainly shown that my case is very hard to prove. Jesus, do you guys know that one of the main officers responsible for the Menenez shooting here in London recently got PROMOTION?
Sure, maybe you interpret conspiracy theories as social phenomenon, but with the kind of political goings-on we witness in the world today, I hardly think it surprising that people don’t trust their governments.
Well fine, but I linked to an interview with a very highly qualified guy in my last post, with much experience in a relevent field. I’m kinda tired right now so I’ll offer the cop-out answer that I feel intuitively that there is something wrong with the collapses.
And this is flat-out incorrect (as far as I’m aware). The only footage of the first impact itself was picked up by that documentary crew following the NY firefighters that day. It wasnt aired until the next day. The second impact was caught from many angles and was replayed over and over and over, but obviously the first one caught the media by surprise. The footage only made it out the next day.
But there may be some decent explanation for Bush’s statement. Silverstein’s statement is certainly far from the confession I first thought it was. I mean fair play to you official story guys, you’ve got some strong stuff, and we conspiracy nuts will certainly have to raise our game to stay in this.
And I’m not mindlessly clinging to the conspiracy side here, I’ve given this a lot of thought lately… and although, once again, I have to say I’m very impressed with the material you’ve presented, it still doesnt persuade me.
Definitely on the backfoot though.
Hey, what happened to that post complimenting us for keeping it civil? I liked that! 
Interesting quote from a 9/11 sceptic blog:
I feel this is certainly true, and I’ve learnt some lessons lately by reading defenders of the official theory. I feel I shall be largely inactive on this issue until I re-clarify my position on it.
9/11 conspiracy? lies spread in order to gain political power , in other words the “spreading 9/11 conspirace idea” - conspiracy is the only true thing here , you all have to look at the big picture for once and relize all the loose changers an 911truthers make up evidence in order to spread it to gain power from 9/11 like they say the us goverment at the time did it or whatever in other words they USE it for personal gain.
Bullsh*t. I have heard that claim many, many times before, and it is sort of absurd. What political gain are they making here? If you take note of who believes in the theories, there are almost no Republicans, almost no former Bush supporters. Most who believed what they saw in Loose Change and the other 9/11 truth videos were already opposed to the Bush/Neo-Con agenda. Bush probably lost five votes to Avery, Jones, and the bunch.
that’s about it , thoose who want to opose the republicans spread this kind of stuff and the other guys belive in it
one guy once said , if you repeat a lie too many times eventualyl it becomes truth , it’s not the wexact quote but it’s very famous , should be noted today with the recent crisis in israel the uprise in the nutjobs about 9/11 (Learn some history will ya? it wasn’t the only attempt to take WTC down during the early 90s when CIA and the tal;iban were cooraporation some other guy tried to do this but it didn’t work)
and the big picture about why the fuck would anyone do it in the first place??? and if he could do it why would he need any justification for anything?
I’d like to see Dylan Avery’s bank account statement, and see how much money he and Louder Than Words LLC have made off of that blunder of a documentary 
The fact is, regardless of political agendas and the like, there are some big problems brewing in the truth movement - ignorance and prejudice.
Take for example the Loose Change forums; they’re full of theories that are absolutely baseless…not baseless like ‘explosives brought down WTC 7’, I mean baseless like ‘an H-bomb blew up towers 1 and 2’, or ‘the planes were actually missiles surrounded by holograms’…and I’m not making this stuff up.
And in some of these threads, they blame the Jews and implicate them in some kind of world wide conspiracy. It’s racist, and it boggles the mind how people can actually claim to be thinking, yet come to these conclusions 
Before, I was willing to at least entertain some of the ideas in the 9/11 truth movement, but after all the research I’ve done, seeing both sides of this issue, there’s not much credibility left to give these guys when it comes to these conspiracies.
When it all comes down to it, I feel that this inherent prejudice, plus the stuff Lebowsk1 mentioned he read in that blog, are going to become the nails in the Truth Movement’s coffin.
And you know whats the worst of it? …
what benefit will the 911 truthers give to the world?
A simple message-
Think for yourself. Don’t accept everything your government tells you. Question Authority.
^ here here. If you accept preconceived notions without first evaluating the data for yourself, you’re not much.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
I believe thinking WITHIN reason is usually a good idea.
Yes, but people tend to forgot that this goes for both sides of the situation.