FOXNEWS: 9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!

fergus o brien

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078#

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078#

Jesus can I have the ten minutes of my life back. This is long debunked bull.

Read this and stop watching rubbish videos. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

fergus o brien

im sure if all the evidence in the video i posted has been debunked as you say you can show everyone exactly what parts of the video are lies or untruths and i assume you will have evidence to back that up.
"the bigger the lie the more they will believe it"

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

im sure if all the evidence in the video i posted has been debunked as you say you can show everyone exactly what parts of the video are lies or untruths and i assume you will have evidence to back that up.
"the bigger the lie the more they will believe it"

You posted the video and I took the time to watch some of it. So why don't you tell me what you think and we'll talk about it. I believe the official report so I'm not making any claims as such.

fergus o brien

meglome wrote: »

Jesus can I have the ten minutes of my life back. This is long debunked bull.

Read this and stop watching rubbish videos. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

" I believe the official report so I'm not making any claims as such."
you made two claims in your post above , that the video is rubbish and bull and that its long been debunked.

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

" I believe the official report so I'm not making any claims as such."
you made two claims in your post above , that the video is rubbish and bull and that its long been debunked.

You posted the video, a video which contradicts the official reports. So it would seem obvious that you think the video is correct. By posting that video you are the one effectively making claims. This is actually a discussion forum and I'm asking you why you think that video has merit.

fergus o brien

i posted a link to a video which i thought people might like to view ,i made no comments or claims in that post. but i think its important that people should have access to all the available info (not just one side) so that they can reach an informed decision on what happened.

your reply
"Jesus can I have the ten minutes of my life back. This is long debunked bull."
why did you stop at 10 minutes viewing ?, could it be that your mind is made up and no amount of evidence that contradicts the official report will change that.

here is another link for those who believe the us government wouldnt lie

http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
check out number 9 in the list does it sound in any way familliar.

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

i posted a link to a video which i thought people might like to view ,i made no comments or claims in that post. but i think its important that people should have access to all the available info (not just one side) so that they can reach an informed decision on what happened.

Well you wouldn't make much of an informed decision watching that video as it's completely biased. Let take an example. Around 6 minutes in with dramatic music playing it quotes people saying it was a small plane or it was like a missile. Let's leave aside that a plane and a missile are completely different things. The pentagon is next to a a major highway and the plane flew over in rush hour, in broad daylight and the road was bumper to bumper. Hundreds if not thousands of people saw the plane. So what the makers of this have done is ignored the many eyewitnesses that saw an AA jet, ignored the lampposts which were knocked over in the space taken up by the 757, ignored the plane parts, ignored the body parts. So once you ignore all of that then sure it might not have been an Americans Airlines plane. Witness List.

He then goes on to say there was no recognisable wreckage from a 757 which is utterly untrue. A plane slams into a concrete building at 500 mph and he's showing pictures of plane wreckage from much less severe crashes. Evidence and more evidence.

fergus o brien wrote: »

here is another link for those who believe the us government wouldnt lie

http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
check out number 9 in the list does it sound in any way familliar.

Oh I have no doubt that most if not all governments lie. But the fact they can lie doesn't mean the the 'truth' movement actually tells the truth. The so called 'truth' movement is well capable of lying or omitting facts that don't agree with their theory's. This video being an excellent example.

I love this Operation Northwoods stuff. A plan which was rejected by the US government and the guy who proposed it was fired. But not only that these dastardly sneaky bástards then release it to the public just to make sure it's not secret before they supposedly carry if out.

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

here is another link for those who believe the us government wouldnt lie

http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
check out number 9 in the list does it sound in any way familliar.

I would like a list of the 330,000 conspiracy theorys that are not true as well. No one said that the american government doesnt lie. The fact that have lied in the past brings out the best in the truth movement trying to say everything is conspiracy.

Having looked at that video it doesnt show where the goverment lies, it tries to fabricate an alternative to the official report by leaving out information and facts to suit their theory. Meglome is correct when he says this information has been debunked. Do a search on google and check the info they ommited.

fergus o brien

if you had watched the video all the way through you would have seen they did not ignore the lamp posts ,in fact they showed the flight path the plane (if it was a plane was supposed to have taken) and lamp posts are standing when they should be knocked down .

they did not ignore the parts of the airplane (not that there were many considering the the size of the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon) they go in to a fair bit of detail regarding the debris including the rotar which can clearly be seen in the video .

if you have evidence the witnesses in this video have lied please show it .

the presenter of the video was quoting the fox news reporter when he said there was no recognisable wreckage (what the fox news presenter said can be seen and heard in the video ) unless you think the video makers doctored what the fox news presenter said .


"I would like a list of the 330,000 conspiracy theorys that are not true as well. No one said that the american government doesnt lie. The fact that have lied in the past brings out the best in the truth movement trying to say everything is conspiracy."
i assume with that comment your going to try and say im one of those who thinks elvis really didnt die ,and the queen is really a lizard ,please dont try and insult mine and other members intelligence by trying to lump the 33 proven theories i posted earlier in with obvious crackpot theories.

im happy to let people watch and judge the video for them selves ,which is why i posted it in the first place .

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

i assume with that comment your going to try and say im one of those who thinks elvis really didnt die ,and the queen is really a lizard ,please dont try and insult mine and other members intelligence by trying to lump the 33 proven theories i posted earlier in with obvious crackpot theories.

im happy to let people watch and judge the video for them selves ,which is why i posted it in the first place .

No not all stop jumping to conclusions fergus you are pretty good at that as far as I can see. You are pointing to a conspiracy theory that was actually founded to be true concerning the american thinking about attacking itself as an excuse to go to war.

What im saying is for every theory that was found to be true there are thousands of ones that are not. You are trying to find a correlation between northwood and 9/11 yet you have no proof and the government didnt even carry out northwood and it was 40 years ago when the CIA effectively did what it wanted. Did you actually look at any other video or do you find this one to be gospel.?

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

if you had watched the video all the way through you would have seen they did not ignore the lamp posts ,in fact they showed the flight path the plane (if it was a plane was supposed to have taken) and lamp posts are standing when they should be knocked down

Looks fine to me

fergus o brien wrote: »

they did not ignore the parts of the airplane (not that there were many considering the the size of the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon) they go in to a fair bit of detail regarding the debris including the rotar which can clearly be seen in the video.

A plane being flown into concrete to test the safety of nuclear power plants. Bottom picture is the plane completely shredded by the impact. The concrete is thicker here but the principle is there.

How about this one.

fergus o brien wrote: »

if you have evidence the witnesses in this video have lied please show it.

Never suggested they did. In this case the makers of the video say they want the truth but they don't quote over 100 people who saw a big jet plane. Instead they quote 2 people who thought it was a smaller plane and a couple of people who said it was like a missile. Of course a big silver jet flying right past your head is like a missile. Witness List Again.

fergus o brien wrote: »

the presenter of the video was quoting the fox news reporter when he said there was no recognisable wreckage (what the fox news presenter said can be seen and heard in the video ) unless you think the video makers doctored what the fox news presenter said.

And what about all the parts, body parts, personal effects that were found? How did a missile knock down the lampposts? Did they get there by magic? Again as long as we ignore all the other evidence then the Fox news report is relevant.

fergus o brien wrote: »

im happy to let people watch and judge the video for them selves ,which is why i posted it in the first place .

It's one of the main problem with 911. If you watch this video you'd be convinced it was a big cover-up. But the simple fact is this video is spinning a story, a story which they must have known to be false.

fergus o brien

" Did you actually look at any other video or do you find this one to be gospel.? "
i could ask you guys the same thing regarding the official report. and i think you will find that plane is not a 757 .

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

" Did you actually look at any other video or do you find this one to be gospel.? "
i could ask you guys the same thing regarding the official report. and i think you will find that plane is not a 757 .

The reason i asked fergus even though you decline to answer is that your great video was released in 2004 and even the truth movement websites discredit it. This link is to a website that actually believe that 9/11 is an inside job but detail the inaccuracies in the video:
http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

To be honest if the truth movement dont even believe this video its obviously a fraud.

In plane site was superseded by 'loose change' in 2005 which took the basis of In plane site and added more hoaxes. This was also nonsense and was re-released as 'loose change: 2nd edition' in 2006 filled with new hoaxes. When they realised they were using copyrighted footage it was re-released as 'loose change: Final Cut'

I thought you would have done better research than to link us to a video that has been superseded three times because of inaccuracies and withholding of information.

Since you concentrated on the pentagon video I found this one rather informative: http://noolmusic.com/google_videos/loose_change_pentagon_theory_debunked.php


Full video looking at all of loose changes claims:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

fergus o brien

"Since you concentrated on the pentagon video I found this one rather informative: http://noolmusic.com/google_videos/l...y_debunked.php"
i concentrated on the pentagon (as you say ) because i was asked questions regarding it,which i answered .

"I thought you would have done better research than to link us to a video that has been superseded three times because of inaccuracies and withholding of information."

i assume you didnt reed my previous post as i simply posted a link and made no claims what so ever ,secondly you have no idea what my research methods are as i have no idea what yours are .

"When they realised they were using copyrighted footage it was re-released as 'loose change: Final Cut'"

and that in what way proves they lied .

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

"Since you concentrated on the pentagon video I found this one rather informative: http://noolmusic.com/google_videos/l...y_debunked.php"
i concentrated on the pentagon (as you say ) because i was asked questions regarding it,which i answered .

"I thought you would have done better research than to link us to a video that has been superseded three times because of inaccuracies and withholding of information."

i assume you didnt reed my previous post as i simply posted a link and made no claims what so ever ,secondly you have no idea what my research methods are as i have no idea what yours are .

"When they realised they were using copyrighted footage it was re-released as 'loose change: Final Cut'"

and that in what way proves they lied .

No that would be when they released loose change second edition. Did you ignore that ya? Are you aware of any 'good' and truthful documentary that needs to be released three times? Four when you include the fraud in plane site which you linked. Why did you think they have to take out the copyrighted material. Because the holders dont want to associate themselves with a pack of lies and misinformation.

If you are just going to post a video and then say I am not saying anything perhaps you should read the charter

I feel the video you linked has been debunked and therefore isnt even a conspiracy theory and the constant re-releasing of loose change which started out with the same claims of this video proves my point. In a play of words I see you are not making a claims but because you are linking this video here gives everyone an inkling that you therefore support the claims of the video.

From what you are saying you are just informing people of a video that was released 6 years ago and is a fraud. I dont really have to question your research methods you are right. You have demonstrated it with the video you posted imo.

Did you get a chance to look at any of the videos I posted. I would appreciate your comments because they kind of contradict the video you posted. Thats if you can post about it, i know you are only a messenger.

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

i assume you didnt reed my previous post as i simply posted a link and made no claims what so ever ,secondly you have no idea what my research methods are as i have no idea what yours are .

There is a resources link stickied which the video is already linked from. So why bother to post it here if you don't want to talk about it.

That video you posted is a con job and those really interested in 911 should care about that fact.

fergus o brien

"There is a resources link stickied which the video is already linked from. So why bother to post it here if you don't want to talk about it.

That video you posted is a con job and those really interested in 911 should care about that fact. "
i never said i didnt want to talk about it, i thought i was talking about it in previous posts.

"No that would be when they released loose change second edition. Did you ignore that ya? Are you aware of any 'good' and truthful documentary that needs to be released three times? Four when you include the fraud in plane site which you linked. Why did you think they have to take out the copyrighted material. Because the holders dont want to associate themselves with a pack of lies and misinformation."

how does their using copyrighted material make what they say untrue and the video a fraud . could it be that the holders dont want their material being used because it puts the truth to the lie.

"From what you are saying you are just informing people of a video that was released 6 years ago and is a fraud. I dont really have to question your research methods you are right. You have demonstrated it with the video you posted imo."

again you dont know any more about my research methods than i do of yours, but its typical of people who choose to accept official reports to resort to insults such as the one above.

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

how does their using copyrighted material make what they say untrue and the video a fraud . could it be that the holders dont want their material being used because it puts the truth to the lie..

The third edition 'the final cut' was when they took out the copyrighted material. Ya seriously the naudet brothers who are french and shot the footage of the first plane are involved in the conspiracy just listen to yourself will ya.

You seem to have missed when I said they had to release the SECOND EDITION to address the multitude of lies and misinformation that had in the first some of which they didnt. Its in CAPITALS for you this time so you dont confuse it with the THIRD edition when they had remove footage because the lies are so evident. Again for the second time what about the SECOND edition which answers your question about them lying?

fergus o brien wrote: »

again you dont know any more about my research methods than i do of yours, but its typical of people who choose to accept official reports to resort to insults such as the one above.

Im an not insulting you I am questioning your research methods becasue you are linking a video that has been proven to be a pack of lies. I am allowed to question your research methods as you are mine. But you prefer to pussyfoot around trying to say nothing at all.

I am saying the video you posted is a pack of lies and I have proof of it. If you cant take that well show the good people here something that proves that statement wrong

fergus o brien

your trying to distort what i said which is not surprising ,this is what i said
"how does their using copyrighted material make what they say untrue and the video a fraud . could it be that the holders dont want their material being used because it puts the truth to the lie.."

"The third edition 'the final cut' was when they took out the copyrighted material. Ya seriously the naudet brothers who are french and shot the footage of the first plane are involved in the conspiracy just listen to yourself will ya."
again distortion ,your trying to say i made the above claim when i said no such thing.

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

your trying to distort what i said which is not surprising ,this is what i said
"how does their using copyrighted material make what they say untrue and the video a fraud . could it be that the holders dont want their material being used because it puts the truth to the lie.."

I said are you missing the fact that the documentary was edited completely in the second edition. That answers your question about the documentary lying. I have adressed the issue of lying do you dispute that?

fergus o brien wrote: »

"The third edition 'the final cut' was when they took out the copyrighted material. Ya seriously the naudet brothers who are french and shot the footage of the first plane are involved in the conspiracy just listen to yourself will ya."
again distortion ,your trying to say i made the above claim when i said no such thing.

Yes you did

fergus o brien wrote: »

could it be that the holders dont want their material being used because it puts the truth to the lie.

The Naudet brothers are one of the holders. You are suggesting here they are involved in the lie by asking for their footage not to be used.

Use the quote button....

fergus o brien

one last time in what way is the fact that a video is edited (because of copyright infringements) proof that the video in part or in whole is a lie/fabrication .

""The third edition 'the final cut' was when they took out the copyrighted material. Ya seriously the naudet brothers who are french and shot the footage of the first plane are involved in the conspiracy just listen to yourself will ya."
again distortion ,your trying to say i made the above claim when i said no such thing. "
"Yes you did"
please point out to me and all the other members the post in which i made the claim that the naudet brothers were involved in any conspiracy.

is this the manner in which you treat all members on this and other forums ,you have attacked me in most of your posts or tried to ridicule me ,you distorted what i said ,you have tried to insult me ,you have said i made certain claims which i did not ,and now it seems i am a liar .

i wouldnt lower myself to your level ,by employing the methods you have used.

meglome

fergus o brien wrote: »

is this the manner in which you treat all members on this and other forums ,you have attacked me in most of your posts or tried to ridicule me ,you distorted what i said ,you have tried to insult me ,you have said i made certain claims which i did not ,and now it seems i am a liar .

i wouldnt lower myself to your level ,by employing the methods you have used.

Look can we all clean the slate here and start again.

I posted many pictures which clearly show plane parts, it actually identifies some of the parts as coming from a 757, I posted a list of witnesses who saw the plane, I posted a test crash in which a plane is shredded against reinforced concrete. All this clearly shows this video to be nonsense. What are your specific reason for believing it?

Divorce Referendum

fergus o brien wrote: »

""The third edition 'the final cut' was when they took out the copyrighted material. Ya seriously the naudet brothers who are french and shot the footage of the first plane are involved in the conspiracy just listen to yourself will ya."
again distortion ,your trying to say i made the above claim when i said no such thing. "
"Yes you did"
please point out to me and all the other members the post in which i made the claim that the naudet brothers were involved in any conspiracy.

is this the manner in which you treat all members on this and other forums ,you have attacked me in most of your posts or tried to ridicule me ,you distorted what i said ,you have tried to insult me ,you have said i made certain claims which i did not ,and now it seems i am a liar .

i wouldnt lower myself to your level ,by employing the methods you have used.

No im not treating you bad in any way. Take it to a mod if you want. If you cant answer simple questions without changing the subject i dont know what to say.

There is such thing as admitting that perhaps your video is not what it seems. If you think I ridiculed you well I dont agree but I am getting frustrated because you have been posting the same question for the last few days over and over.

One last time for you now im am fed up of saying this because its not registering with you!

one last time in what way is the fact that a video is edited (because of copyright infringements) proof that the video in part or in whole is a lie/fabrication .

That does not prove it is a lie or fabrication thats just what you are saying on it and not looking at the fact they edited it because of lies and not copyright only. The fact of the matter is that the second edition had to be edited to correct innacurate claims and not to address copyright issues.

The original 2005 film was edited and re-released as Loose Change: 2nd Edition (2006), and then subsequently edited a third time for the 2nd Edition Recut (2007), each time to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to correct some inaccurate claims and remove copyrighted material. Loose Change: Final Cut, deemed "the third and final release of this documentary series"[1] was released on DVD and Web-streaming format on November 11, 2007.

They lied to manipulate the public into believing them simple as that. Dont take my word for it look at the first edition and the final cut and you will see alot of stuff gone and some corrected. Mind you alot of stuff still exists.

Di0genes

fergus o brien wrote: »

one last time in what way is the fact that a video is edited (because of copyright infringements) proof that the video in part or in whole is a lie/fabrication .
.

In an interview with Mark Roberts the film makers were forced to admit that the film contained inaccuracies.

A number of years ago, RTE were planning on showing the film, I among others, e-mailed the station with a list of factual inaccuracies

It has come to my attention the RTE is intending to broadcast the "documentary" Loose Change. I'm purposely putting the word documentary in inverted commas, because the film Loose Change is not a documentary, it is a work of fiction. The film makers claim that the tragic events of Sept 11th were in fact stage managed. The world trade center was brought down using explosive charges. The pentagon was not hit by a passenger jet but rather struck by a missile. And that the passengers of Unitied 93 did not rise up and heroically fight off their hijackers in a desperate heroic last act that cost them their lives, but rather the jet was destroyed by a missile.

The film is slickly made, and put together using misquotes fire department officials, the owner of the World Trade Center, and eye witnesses. It presents "evidence" and opinion from "experts", whose field of expertise is utterly irrelevant to the matter on which they are speaking on. It contains, by one critic's view , 426 errors in Loose Change , including 115 false statements comprising 81 errors of fact. So, at least 81 times the Loose Change guys could have spent a few minutes to verify a claim about 9/11 and failed to do so.

In fact the film makers themselves admit that the film contains factual errors;

"We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves."
– Korey Rowe, August, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/qruh7

Row is the film's producer.

"We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That's the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…. " -- Dylan Avery on Hardfire http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

Avery is the film's director.

This of concern to me as I am someone who is proud to have worked on several documentaries for RTE. I know that no documentary director or producer I worked with would be happy allowing a film with glaring factual errors to go to air. Look at your program makers guidelines http://www.rte.ie/about/programmemakersguidelines.pdf

---

it says that the schedules should meet the test of public service by including broad categories of programmes as described above. Among the important characteristics of public service broadcasting are;

Freedom from political control or influence

Fairness

Accuracy

Impartiality

Objectivity

Independence from vested interests

---

Accuracy is a fundamental guideline for RTE program makers.

I should point that the film you are going to screen is actually entitled Loose Change 2nd Edition. The first released cut of the film had to be pulled due to several massive factual inaccuracies, and that it was using copyrighted material without permission. The film is primarily comprised of 3rd party footage, mostly from American news networks. As is my understand they have not paid a single cent for this footage, but claim they are allowed use the footage under the legal concept of "Fair Use" or "Fair Dealing". I don't need to explain to you what this concept is, but I'd be hard pressed to find a documentary, that braising consists, pretty much entirely, of other peoples footage, and attempted to pass this off as "fair use".

The film also libels, among others, Larry Silverstein. The filmmakers take a quote from Mr Silverstein out of context to suggest he was involved in a decision to demolish the WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.

Onto the factual inaccuracies; I shall briefly outline some of the films many untruths, half truths and outright lies.

U.S. air defenses were ordered to "stand down" on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed. –FALSE There is no evidence for any such order. The normal contingent of 14 fighter aircraft was on alert to protect the U.S. borders. The FAA was responsible for reporting hijackings to the military. The hijacked aircraft were difficult to track because their transponders had been turned off. The most warning the military had of any of the 4 flights was 9 minutes.
• An unusual number of war games were deliberately held on 9/11 to occupy and confuse potential defenders. –FALSE. NEADS ran no wargames and no hijacking exercises on 9/11.

• Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 wreckage or human remains were recovered and identified there. It disappeared and no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or its passengers. The Pentagon was probably struck by a smaller military plane or a missile.

–FALSE. Dozens of witnesses saw flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon right in front of them. American Airlines 757 wreckage was everywhere. The remains of all but one passenger were recovered and positively identified. Personal effects were recovered. Both "black boxes" were recovered, one (the flight data recorder) containing information about the plane's actions until impact. To deny that this happened is a grievous insult to the victims, their families, the first responders, and investigators.

• Flight 93 did not crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to storm the cockpit. No aircraft wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified there. Instead, flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland where its passengers were removed and presumably killed. That plane may have contained not only flight 93's passengers, but all the passengers from the other three planes as well. The actual plane, tail number N591UA, was still in use as of 2003.

–FALSE. Numerous witnesses saw flight 93 go down. The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered with complete information. The CVR proves that passengers tried to storm the cockpit. 37 phone calls were made from passengers and crew. The FDR shows that all major systems were functioning normally when the plane struck the ground at 580 mph. Most of the plane was recovered at the scene. The remains of every passenger, and personal effects of most, were recovered at the scene and positively identified. Passengers from the Washington, D.C. and Boston flights did not miraculously wind up on flight 93, which departed from Newark. Flight 93 was not seen in Cleveland and the aircraft was not in service after September 11, 2001. To deny that this happened is a grievous insult to the victims, their families, the first responders, and investigators.


• None of the many calls made by passengers on the hijacked aircraft were real. All the calls were perfectly faked by the conspirators using "voice-morphing" technology. The fakes occurred in real time as events unfolded, and were good enough to fool all the relatives of the "alleged" callers. (Revised to "None of the cell phone calls could have happened.")

–FALSE. Most of the calls from the planes were made from the installed Airfones. People who called from their cell phones spoke with loved ones and described exactly what was happening. The technology to fake real-time conversations with a loved one does not exist. Personal details, such as the combination to a home safe, were given during those calls. The Loose Change creators now admit that at least the Airfone calls could have happened, however, they choose to mock the calls themselves, which were the last words of the callers.

• At least 9 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11.

–FALSE. The claim is based on a September, 2001 BBC story about living people with the same names as some of the hijackers. The BBC updated the story and reported that all the hijackers had been identified. The FBI announced on Nov. 2, 2001 that all the hijackers had been identified. Several hijackers were matched to DNA profiles. DNA of two brothers was matched at the Pentagon. The only two brothers to die there were hijackers Nawaf and Salem al Hamzi, who were on flight 77. No 9/11 hijackers surfaced after the attacks. All but one of the 19 had broken all ties with their families. Several made martyrdom videos. The 9/11 Commission report details the terrorists' plotting, travel, training, purchases, and other activities leading up to the attacks. Saudi Arabia agrees that 15 of its citizens were among the hijackers.

• al Qaeda had no role in the attacks. A video of bin Laden admitting his involvement was faked.

–FALSE. Some of the hijackers were experienced al Qaeda members. After an initial denial when he was on the run for his life, bin Laden has repeatedly admitted his role in the attacks. Bin Laden appears in the "faked" video for about a half-hour. It is clearly him and he is clearly speaking with his known associates. 9/11's mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is in U.S. custody and is being prepared for trial, as is his lieutenant Ramzi Binalshibh.

• World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by preplanted explosive devices. Additional explosive devices blew up in the Twin Towers prior to the demolition charges going off. The towers did not collapse due to structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft striking them. Fires were not severe in the towers.

–False. No one has presented a single piece of evidence to back these claims. NIST's 10,000-page engineering report on the towers explains the probable cause of the collapses in great detail. The LC creators have apparently not read that report or its summaries, because they don't know what it's conclusions are. The engineering and scientific communities do not support the conspiracist claims, nor do seismic devices placed in the area and afar. All the quotes of explosions in the Towers in Loose Change are taken out of context. When put in context, these statements make perfect sense and do not support the conspiracist claims. The FDNY and other New York uniformed first responders do not support the conspiracist claims.

WTC building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, did not sustain serious structural damage and fires. Its collapse was unexpected and mysterious. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC towers and owner of building 7, profited by over insuring his buildings.

–FALSE. The building sustained severe damage from the collapse of the towers and had uncontrolled fires for seven hours. The building was examined inside and out by FDNY experts, who determined that its collapse was imminent. A collapse zone was cleared around the building hours before it came down. First responders say that the building was "fully engaged" with "roaring" fire when it went down. NIST reports fires visible on 14 floors. The conspiracy believers are unable to state a rational motive for "conspirators" to destroy this building. Larry Silverstein's insurance contracts called for him to rebuild in the event of total losses.

• No inspection was allowed of WTC debris. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered all potential evidence to be removed from the site.

–FALSE. Conspiracists present no evidence to back this claim The debris had to be removed from the dangerous piles in order for it to be inspected. It took 9 months for all the steel to be removed. The engineer investigators had full access to the scrap yards and sorting operations. At Fresh Kills, 1,000 people, including 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams and numerous NYPD detectives, worked for 9 months sorting, sifting, and examining the smaller debris for evidence.

• Investors with advance knowledge of 9/11 made millions in the stock market. –FALSE. No evidence of any advance knowledge was uncovered, and trades that may have seemed suspicious at first were thoroughly investigated and found to be innocuous.

• A document produced by prominent Neocons in 2000 called for a "New Pearl Harbor." –FALSE. The document says no such thing. It contains recommend ations for transforming the military in the absence of a transforming event like the Pearl Harbor attack.

• In a matter of minutes, diring the attacks, $166.8 billion in gold was stolen from the vaults beneath the World Trade Center. (Revised to about a $1 billion when it was pointed out to the LC creators that $168 billion would be 1/3 of the entire world's gold reserves and would take thousands of trucks to move.)

–FALSE. About $230 million (not billion) of mostly silver was stored in those vaults. The vaults remained intact and all the bullion was recovered and removed in 120 truckloads.

• No real investigation of the causes of the attacks was done.

–FALSE. The 9/11 investigations were by far the largest in U.S. history, involving, among many other people, 7,000 FBI agents.

For a more detailed critque and break down of the many massive factual errors, and blatant lies in the film please read the following documents;

http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

or here

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/

and finally here

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change

Avery the film's director, has a dedication at the start of the film claiming the film is a memorial to those who died on September 11th;

http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

This 98 page document shows some of the offensive and abusive comments Avery has directed at the families of victims, it also lists off many of the factual inaccurate and flat out incorrect comments made by these "film makers".

In fact the film has been re-edited by other parties to expose the factual errors in;

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

And to expose that the makers of Loose Change relied heavily on article and research carried out by the following two websites

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

www.americanfreepress.net/

Both of which have a far right agenda.

I'm not asking for the film to be censored or removed from your schedule, I am merely asking that if you must broadcast it, please qualify it with reasonable discussion and a balanced viewpoint. RTE has a high standard of integrity and it would be a shame to wound a hard won and well deserved reputation as a quality broadcaster, by allowing this program to go to air, without comment.

Regards

.


RTE decided to drop the program.

thebullkf

FWIW having read through the thread i must say :
Meglome and Divorce Referendum would you like to ease off a bit???

its a tag team effort discreditng the OP.and you both have been guilty of what he's claimed.even if he's wrong/mis informed i find your beahviour shocking and tbh would make me think twice about posting in this thread,and i'm sure other readers feel the same.

The Recliner

thebullkf wrote: »

FWIW having read through the thread i must say :
Meglome and Divorce Referendum would you like to ease off a bit???

its a tag team effort discreditng the OP.and you both have been guilty of what he's claimed.even if he's wrong/mis informed i find your beahviour shocking and tbh would make me think twice about posting in this thread,and i'm sure other readers feel the same.

If you have an issue with posts or poster please report them to the Mods and we will deal with

Please don't tackle it directly as this is considered back seat modding

thebullkf

The Recliner wrote: »

If you have an issue with posts or poster please report them to the Mods and we will deal with

Please don't tackle it directly as this is considered back seat modding

ok.

Apologies:o i just feel the OP was ganged up on a ittle bit.
Won't happen again.
As a matter of interest (i just saw you're the mod here) what do you think?

thebullkf

Di0genes wrote: »

In an interview with Mark Roberts the film makers were forced to admit that the film contained inaccuracies.

A number of years ago, RTE were planning on showing the film, I among others, e-mailed the station with a list of factual inaccuracies
.


RTE decided to drop the program.

is that your email?? you must be so proud!!

The Recliner

thebullkf wrote: »

ok.

Apologies:o i just feel the OP was ganged up on a ittle bit.
Won't happen again.
As a matter of interest (i just saw you're the mod here) what do you think?

When only one person is arguing a postition then it will seem like and feel like they are being ganged up on

I don't feel like it is a tag team as you suggest, I can understand if the OP feel a little ganed up on but I don't think it is intentional and they are free to PM the Mods or report posts if they feel they are