Party Vibe

A must see…

[google]7866929448192753501[/google]

“Loose Change 2nd Edition” is the follow-up to the most provocative 9/11 documentary on the market today. This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government. Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Overview

Loose Change is a documentary by Dylan Avery (director and narrator), Korey Rowe (producer) and Jason Bermas (webmaster and graphic designer), released through their company, Louder Than Words.

The documentary presents a rebuttal to the official version of events during the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 9/11 Commission Report. It alleges that the attacks were not the result of terrorism but a series of cleverly executed events carried out by the US government.

Released as two separate editions, the documentary has been the focus of much debate with many websites and individuals challenging the validity of claims made by it. Avery is currently developing a script for a feature film version titled Loose Change: The Movie, scheduled for release in 2006.

History

The idea for the project was coined by Avery in May 2002 after a conversation with actor James Gandolfini in which Gandolfini told Avery “If you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world”. [1] Avery began writing a story in which he and his friends discover that the events of September 11, 2001 were not the result of terrorist attacks but rather, orchestrated by the US government.

Financial backing for the project came in April 2005 from producers such as Phil Jayhan of letsroll911.org [2]. Avery released the first edition of Loose Change with an initial press of 1,000 DVDs. Rowe, a former soldier who served in Afghanistan and Iraq joined the project in June 2005. Bermas also joined the team and together they released an updated second edition in November 2005.

The documentary is available for purchase and distribution through its official website [3]. It can also be viewed online and downloaded through Google Video.

The documentary has been released in two editions. The first was released in April 2005 with the second released in November 2005. The second edition is a remake of the original with added footage and information.
Content

Timeline

Includes background information of a plan put forward in the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis then outlines significant events leading up to September 11, 2001.

Pentagon

Alleges that based on the evidence, or lack of, American Airlines Flight 77 could not have possibly crashed into the Pentagon and that damage sustained to the building may have been caused by a cruise missile or a smaller military aircraft.

World Trade Center

Suggests that the actual collapses of the World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 were not triggered by the plane crashes but by a series of explosions within the buildings that were detonated shortly before each building collapsed.

Flight 93

Suggests that United Airlines Flight 93 did not crash in rural Shanksville, Pennsylvania but actually landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport where it was evacuated by government personnel into an unused NASA research center.

Oddities

Asserts that the technology to make cellular phone calls from airplanes was not invented until 2004.

Suggests that cell phone calls from passengers and crew were faked by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico using sophisticated voice-morphing technology and that the December 13, 2001 video of Osama Bin Laden admitting guilt was also faked.
Asserts that of the list of hijackers initially released by the government, many were not in the planes and are still alive today.

Cui Bono

Outlines possible motives for the attacks.

Factual inaccuracies

The film states that New York’s Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 in 1945. It was actually a B-25 Mitchell, an aircraft less than one-third the size of a B-52. The authors have since apologized and acknowledged this error.

Dylan Avery claims that the motors belonging to the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, made of steel and titanium alloys, could not have melted, because the burning temperature of kerosene in even a pure oxyen environment is below the melting point of titanium. Critics contend the melting point of titanium is irrelevant since the motors involve steel-titanium alloy rather than pure titanium, although Ti alloys melt at temperatures (1668 C)[1] significantly closer to titanium (1725 C) than to steel (1500 C).

The movie cites a study in which cell phone calls could not be made at 32,000 ft, it is assumed flight 93 was flying that high. In fact it was much lower on radar.

The movie cites Loizeaux, a demolition expert, and suggests he thinks the building was blown up with bombs and not from jet fuel, the movie does not continue to quote Loizeaux from the same article on the screen and mention he thinks it was from “jet fuel.” The jet fuel would have caused molten steel to fall to the bottom of the elevator shafts from the heat of burning fuel by melting the steel building, the movie suggests that it is somehow a factor in blowing up the building.

The movie focuses on the Pentagon not being significantly damaged, but earlier mentions in the film itself that the building was protected specifically and structurally from this kind of attack. It makes sense then that the building would act like a bunker, not like a typical building when hit by a plane.

The film suggests that a plane hitting just a light pole would crash. It suggests a Gulfstream II headed to Houston crashed because it hit a light pole, in fact the Gulfstream II jet crashed and a TV reporter noted it had clipped a light pole before crashing, the film suggests the pole ripped the wing off. The film states 5 light posts were knocked over Flight 77, in fact light poles are designed to detach from few simple bolts, on impact from car crashes to save lives. The effect of hitting a light post by a plane’s wing would not cause it to crash.

The official website contains a statement saying not to take anything the documentary says at face value and encourages viewers to personally research information on 9/11 and to form their own opinions.

Criticisms

Loose Change has been criticized as disinformation even by some within the 9/11 Truth Movement, which disagrees with many aspects of the official version of events on 9/11/01 [2]. A primary concern of many in the movement is the promotion by documentaries such as Loose Change and In Plane Site, that a commercial jet did not hit the Pentagon [3], [4], [5], [6].

Critics of the documentary’s proposal that a cruise missile or a small aircraft may have been the cause of damage to the Pentagon, cite the nearly 100 documented accounts from witnesses on the scene[7] who reported seeing a large airliner. Some witnesses specifically noted seeing a 757, while only two witnesses, located some distance from the scene, reported seeing a small plane. Loose Change, however, implies that an equal number of witnesses reported different aircraft as reported a commercial jet, and does not mention the large body of witness reports in support of a commercial jet. Critics of the missile theory note that not a single witness at the scene has ever reported seeing a missile[8].

Many do not support the suggestion put forth (weasel words) by Loose Change that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland instead of crashing or being shot down in Pennsylvania, and that passengers were subsequently secretly evacuated to an empty NASA research center. The 9/11 Truth Movement reference needed note that there is virtually no evidence to support this claim weasel words and that many witnesses at the time reported seeing and hearing the plane at the crash site.[9], [10].

Wikipedia was used as a source for some information from the documentary. It has been argued that since Wikipedia can be publicly and anonymously edited, the producers of the documentary could have edited articles to suit their own purposes. None of the Wikipedia-based information has yet been verified as correct or incorrect.

The film carries many of the features of a Conspiracy Theory. Most notably, it appeals to common sense, letting the spectator draw some of the conclusions himself to make its claims more convincing. Regarding for example the events at the Pentagon, Dylan Avery shows a piece of the plane’s fuselage on the lawn, and says: “And why is not singed, or scratched, after a 530 mph impact, and the subsequent fireball?”, without trying to explain why it should be. He also claims that another part found on the site could not have come from a 757: “Let’s look a little closer at the defuser case of a 757. Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings ? Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the Pentagon”. Rather than relying on an expert, it puts the spectator in the expert’s seat.