Loose Change - 9/11 Documentary

Yes, over 2 years ago, and everything in that poorly done video was debunked.

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

Just an excerpt from the above:
The video begins with a direct eyewitness report from FOX reporter Mark Burnback [sic] who observed UA 175 that hit WTC2.

It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the side. Again it was not a normal flight that I’d ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front and it did not look like it belonged in the area.



This statement is taken as gospel both by Mr. Avery and his admirers, an amusing fact given the deserved reputation FOX enjoys as a propaganda station for the Cheney/Bush administration. Mr. Avery has lifted parts of the quote from Dave vonKleist’s “In Plane Site”, but has not mentioned that in the fuller version witness Birnbach states that he was at a subway stop in Brooklyn, hence at least a mile from the plane that was silhouetted against the sky, so that Birnbach would not be not able to see any windows because of both the distance and the lighting. Eyewitness reports for brief shocking events are notoriously unreliable; and other photos of the plane definitively show it had standard United Airlines markings; airplane wreckage with windows was found amongst the rubble at WTC5. Thus, Mr. Avery makes selective use of unreliable eyewitnesses ill placed to make the relevant observations, and he ignores other available evidence that this witness is mistaken. That’s just for starters.

Another:

I will be brief. The “pod” or “missile” is an artifact of light and shadow reflecting from the fairings of the UA175. The fairings are the elongated ovular pods under each wing of a Boeing 767 into which the landing gear retract. They extend from roughly the point where the front of the wings join the plane to several feet behind where the back of the wings join the plane. It is a scandal of both “In Plane Site” and of “Loose Change” that neither mentions the existence of wing fairings.

Another:

But Mr. Avery makes two claims that are pragmatic contradictions, and argues very badly for each of them. Mr. Avery argues that all the calls are bogus based on research by Professor of Physics A.K. Dewdney trying to make call phone calls from a chartered airplane over Canada. I don’t think that Dewdney’s self-funded research in Canada is definitive about how the entire lot of commercial cell phones in airlines at unknown heights may have behaved in the United States. Additionally, some reports of cell-phone calls may be paid air-phone calls.

And lets not even get started on the the Pentagon theories.......

The entire video is a crock of shit. Pretty poorly made too. Very deceiving video.

Bump to the top.....

Anyone hear about the San Fran highway bridge collapse? There goes THAT theory, ya conspiracy fucktards!

ROFLMAO! Damn Eric - lol

Tanker truck with auto fuel blew up....melted the overpass.




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL