Comments | jessimocha: this is important.

jessimocha

this is important.

May 03, 2006 20:13

seriously.

if you have not yet seen loose change, or any other documentary outlining the exact truth about 9/11 you have to.

i'm mostly talking to american friends. but everyone needs to see this movie.

it's just over an hour long. but it's free.watch it. tell everyone you know to watch it ( Read more... )

Comments 6

tryaswemight May 4 2006, 03:26:40 UTC

I hate living in a high-speed-less wasteland.

Maybe I'll smuggle myself onto someone's computer this weekend and watch it.

tryaswemight May 4 2006, 03:28:23 UTC

Also, the other night I had a dream that your mother lived in a hockey arena and drove this big old pickup truck. And she drove me around and we wore lots of things made of wool.
And also there were little kids playing hockey.

Weird.

imdahman May 5 2006, 00:00:50 UTC

it's actually an extremely left-wing-centric editorial movie. It's not complete FACT. It's coincedences and selective information. They use the 'unicorn' effect.

Essentially, any plausible information can be found it you manipulate facts and are very selective as to what you really show. In the case of the 'unicorn' two scientists were able to map out the feeding habits of a unicorn down to the tee, with almost inarguable facts - with the exception that a unicorn DOESN'T EXIST.

Its a very convincing film, but it isn't absolute fact - its a conspiracy theory that is very through and relies on left wing leanings and the casual observers lack of detail in regard to the events surrounding 9/11.

jessimocha May 5 2006, 23:22:37 UTC

i actually completely disagree with you.

i feel this IS in fact a documentary, everything they use is fact. whether it's eyewitness accounts from people in teh bulding, those nearby, and firefighters or photographic and video footage, or official documentation and scientific fact. it is scientifically impossible that those buildings fell at free fall speed, for example, unless there were explosives as in a controlled demolition.

i think you need to watch it again, dude. as far as i saw (and i've watched it about a thousand times now) it is actual fact and hard evidence. they don't propose theories, they never say what they think it means, they simply present the raw evidence as they found it.

so nyah. :p

We're not talking about Michael Moore here, Tommy. pelagicboreas May 6 2006, 04:01:04 UTC

I know the unicorn theory, Tom. The same argument is used by Christian 'scientists' to negotiate evolution into the creation myth by claiming that different phases of evolutionary development described in the Book of Genesis actually describe the tenets laid out by Darwin. The underlying principle of the unicorn theory is that you take the malleable fine print in biological/physical/chemical/et al. science, twist its actual application and definitions to accommodate otherwise implausible theories, and come out with a mish-mash barely approximating an acceptable hypothesis. In this case, however, the opposite is achieved.

What we've been told by the U.S. government for nearly five years is the unicorn effect, not the other way around. We've been fed an extremely implausible and damned near impossible theory in an attempt to explain what happened, and it's been couched in enough pseudoscientific terminology to fool a lot of people who haven't taken the time to analyze the facts for themselves. As Loose Change points out, the official ( ... )

Re: We're not talking about Michael Moore here, Tommy. pelagicboreas May 6 2006, 04:03:06 UTC

(Continuing on, then.)

2) Large aircraft do not disintegrate nor evaporate. This is the shit I always found the most suspicious about the story of 9/11 from day one, and when I saw the actual photos from the Pentagon and Shanksville in the papers on September 12th, I wasn't satisfied. The official story included an eyewitness account of Flight 93 flying inverted overhead at low altitude, then diving into a wooded area and exploding. When recovery teams and coroners arrived on the site shortly thereafter, absolutely zero evidence of an aircraft strike was found. Flight 93 allegedly passed at a low enough altitude to be recognized right down to the registration number and rivets. At this altitude, especially with its speed, trajectory and flight dynamics, Flight 93 would have struck the ground, bruned, broken into several pieces, and rolled as heaps of twisted, mangled wreckage for hundreds of feet, but not before leaving a long, black, body-strewn scar in the earth-- as airliner crashes do. Flight 93 apparently lolled to the earth ( ... )