Reviews

I saw this movie and then I read the Popular Mechanic's debunking. I also watched the debates on TV featuring the producers of Loose Change and various skeptics.

Without going into how emotionally charged these young men are (which is a funny thing for me to say because I'm only 25 myself), I was constantly annoyed by how they liked to repeat 'it just doesn't add up'.

In my opinion, conspiracy theorist start off with an advantage, because while the adherents to the official version of events must PROVE their claims, the conspiracy theorists don't - they succeed when they manage to create enough doubt about the official version of events.

I agree that there are some questionable areas in the official version of events.

However, the alternative simply does not add up.

Here are the reasons why the conspiracy theory (that the US government planned and carried out 9/11) does not add up.

1. Why would the US government blow up the third building ('building 7') with bombs, hours after the attack? Why would they do this on purpose? Wouldn't doing so raise questions in everyone's minds???

2.Why would the US government fire a cruise missile into the Pentagon, and then say it was attacked by a passenger plane? Why would they risk being found out? Why not use a real plane (passenger plane or otherwise) and drive it into the pentagon, so that there is no danger of people raising questions about the lack of identifiable remnants of the plane at the crash site?

3. Why would the US government crash 2 passenger planes into the WTC, and also blow up the buildings with bombs planted at various floors? Why risk being found out? Why not just blow up the WTC with bombs in the first place (with no planes crashing into them), and then claim it was a terrorist attack (of which they have proof)???

4. The official version claims that the planes were hijacked by terrorists, and that they crashed them into the WTC. But if the conspiracy theorists are correct, then who flew those planes into the WTC? Religious extremists are well known to strap bombs to their chests for suicide bombing, but are we to believe that somebody was prepared to die for the economic benefits of the USA??? If they were driven by an autopilot (as some people claim), then how can you explain the frantic phone calls of the passengers to their families???

They say truth is stranger than fiction. Sure it is strange that the 'building 7' collapsed, but just because you do not fully understand something, it doesn't mean it cannot happen.

In summary, I think that the theories put forward by Loose Change have at least 10x the number of inconsistencies that the official version has.

Now you'll probably claim that I am really a CIA agent who is typing this from some unknown location, under direction from some unknown branch of government.

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH... creepy.........

This 'documentary' raises some VERY interesting questions, every single one of which can be explained with the help of expert knowledge in various fields concerned.

This is a 'hit and run' strategy, where they throw a bunch of questions at you (that initially provide partially believable 'evidence'), and run with the money they made from selling broadcasting rights to TV stations around the world.

By the time you do some thinking and reading of your own, and realise that their version of events have 10 times the number of inconsistencies compared to the official version of events, it is already too late. You have already made the producers rich by watching their show.

Conspiracy theories are exciting, because they offer an alternative to the official versions of events, and tricks the viewer into thinking that they are a select few who know the TRUTH (despite the fact that if you saw it on TV, so did millions of other people).

One must do a lot of research to make a show like this, and there is no way that he did not come across perfectly valid explanations for the claims he's making (such as that found in the Popular Mechanics article, link below:)

http://www.messiahsbranch.org/images/content/911_myths.htm

The producers knew that each and every one of his claims, while creating some interesting questions initially, didn't stack up in the end.

For example, the hole in the Pentagon didn't seem wide enough for a Boeing jet - but did they consider that the fuselage carries 95% of the weight of the aircraft, such that when it crashes into reinforced concrete, it leaves a hole the size of the fuselage, rather than a perfect imprint of the aircraft like you see in cartoons?

And did they know that there were photographic evidence of remains of airplanes at the Pentagon crash site, and of passenger windows at the WTC crash site?

Of course they did. But did they address any of them?

Of course they didn't.

If you spent any time at all researching the evidence (as the producers of the show would have), you would have found out that it simply didn't make sense.

This show is pure garbage - and a moral/ethical crime against those whose lives were tragically ended that day 5 years ago.

Regards