Go tell someone that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and you’ll be passed a tin hat and marched out the door. Now I like tin hats but they clash with my other outfits so I have to sit on the fence with a lot of these issues and listen to each sides until I’ve heard 95% of the arguments with returning arguments from both sides many times over.
So that brings me to Loose Change 2009. What’s probably the most interesting thing about is the sheer amount of information that’s contained within. Without a doubt it’s research is more in depth and comprehensive than any official story I’ve seen and the collection of documents and footage is impressive to say the least.
Loose Change has been through quite a few changes itself. Apart from 2008 there’s been a new version out every year since it’s initial 2005 release. The first version I saw looked fairly rough and was clearly made on a low budget, giving it that conspiracy nut edge. Since then the production has significantly increased and is extremely slick, but so has the information contained. The DVD itself contains a lot of extra info and is certainly a great resource – I wish more DVD’s were this in depth.
As new evidence has come to light this has been included to create a really up to date and impressive release and wether you believe the US government is guilty or not, Loose Change makes a highly convincing argument. What’s for sure is the public do not have the full story and so the producers of Loose Change have stepped in.
PLEASE NOTE: We’d love your intelligent opinions if you’ve seen this movie or questions if you haven’t. The movie in NO WAY represents our views we’re open to debate from both sides. I will have to delete any comments containing foul language or comments mentioning the intelligence of individuals as I know this topic attracts those with a short, dismissive temper. Those people will be given a pointy hat with a D on it and told to sit in the corner. This is posted by Phillis not Derren – so please note that.
Loose Change 2009 is out now and available here on the 16th of November.
"
To be honest i dont want to even think that the American government could orchestrate something like this because if they could, who’s next?
I do enjoy documentaries that shake belief and that make you think and this does look very professional but i would fear for my life if this attack was conducted by the USA because if they do this to themselves what will they do to everyone else?
Regardless of whether one ‘believes’ in a conspiracy other than the one we’re told was hatched in the hills of Afghanistan, the QUESTIONS risen by films like Loose Change always intrigue me. Theories are all well and good, but it’s the questions which cause people to theorise which should be looked at with more scrutiny than the theories themselves.
Not another pointy hat with a D on! I could open a damn museum.
Seriously though, the governments and people behind them will always know more than anyone on the outside. Similar to huge, all dominating business entities.
That’s what gives them so much power over the people they control (in my opinion anyway).
Pax, amor et concordia.
x
I watched the original “Loose Change” some years ago and was initially somewhat persuaded about the possibility of a conspiracy. However, I later decided such a conspiracy was unlikely based on a few of simple questions, which I now use when assessing all conspiracy theories. The questions are:
A.) What is the largest possible group of people who can keep a secret?
B.) What is the smallest possible number of people required to orchestrate the conspiracy?
C.) Is B smaller than A?
If not, then the conspiracy is impossible. I don’t know the numbers required for either variable, but I suspect orchestrating a conspiracy of this size and complexity would take a lot of people, and there would be an incredibly high risk that at least one of them would break cover or otherwise become compromised. I don’t think suck a conspiracy is feasible.
I first saw this docu about 2 years ago. It made a huge impact on me and I urged my friends to watch it and get their opinions. It’s wasn’t so much that I 100% bought into the conspiracy theories, but the wealth of data, the way it was presented by “normal” people usually outside if the media and the fact that much of the content wasn’t widely in the public domain. I agree it’s got more slick and appears more credible as it’s lost the appearance of a conspiracy theorists lone quest. For me its about raising more questions than answers and questions that have not been addressed in a public context.it’s supposition is almost unthinkable. I’m only suprised this hasn’t had more publicity other than in the Internet community?
Many people are ignorant of Bush-Saudi family ties, of Cheney’s long-held enthusiasm for attacking Iraq, & of the manipulative way the administration capitalized on 9/11 to attack civil liberties & launch an illegal war.
But it is NOT true that “the public do not have the full story” about the details of the attack itself. The meticulously bipartisan 9/11 Commission had unfettered access. If this were an inside job it’d require the complicity of Bush’s political opponents on the Commission, the CIA, FBI, NSA, State Dept & Pentagon without a single whistleblower. It’d be the greatest scam of all time. Is this the kind of meticulous expertise the Bush Administration is renowned for? They couldn’t even pass social security reform or dredge New Orleans. And 8 months before, Clinton was in charge. Nup. Too neat. Reality is messier than this.
There’s this very weird “9/11 fetishism” associated with all these videos. It’s almost like they _want_ to relive the event, over and over and over again. The egregious repetition makes me think the people are trying to disturb, rather than enlighten, and my insta-conclusion is that the producers are, themselves, disturbed (not that 9/11 wouldn’t disturb someone, I myself watched the second plane fly in from a block away).
Anyway, a lot of this stuff does get debunked, but they keep on trucking.
What I’ve yet to hear, and I’ve looked around for it a bit (although not so much lately) is anything resembling a plausible “alternative” series of events. Things like “On roughly August 4th, Rummy and Wolfie were in a meeting where they told X to order a team to insert the explosives.”
Plus, there’s James Woods.
Ugh. Time to unsubscribe to Derren Brown’s twitter account. If I knew I would be guided to this kind of pernicious junk I wouldn’t have checked it in the first place.
Loose Change and other 9/11 conspiracy theories have been debunked so often it just isn’t funny any more. Recently on a full length Channel 4 documentary. Virtually every claim is bogus and riddled with flaws.
People make a living out of this garbage and the worst thing about it is that it obstructs the real story of 9/11 which was that of the Islamic movement, American emperialism and so on. The 9/11 truthers present an insult to truth, scholarship, journalism, inquiry etc.
Quite interesting. While I agree we aren’t being told everything, and that there is something seriously wrong with the stories that have been made up to explain all this, I still find no evidence to blame the government… They might know what’s really going on, but I’m not so sure they’re behind it.
Arthur while I respect your seemingly unquestionable tome of knowledge regarding the events of 9/11, I wish you’d share your own views rather than passing off somebody elses as your own research. Is it really enough to say “these theories have been debunked” while not pointing to any theory as an example. Which exactly are you referring to?
Do you have while hearted unwaivering belief that 4 planes were hijacked and failed to be intercepted by the most sophisticated air defence system in the world. That everyone “looking the other way” for a few hours was a regretable mistake, justified simply by a lack of knowledge. Marine Smedly Butler exposed some interesting truths a very long time ago, and northwoods was just around the corner in relation to these attacks. You don’t believe a democratic government could recreate events like the political parties of circa 1935 Germany? Conspiracy theories and more importantly conspiracy “theroists” aside, ask yourself a million questions before trying to answer one as complex as the former.
Ask questions.
I really hope this is a joke. This crap has been debunked time and time again, and however often they change the feces, it’s still feces. The problem is that there is a lack of critical thinking, and a lack of trust for the government, and authority (and experts) – especially when they disagree with a persons own ideas. These conspiracy nuts are interesting to study psychologically and sociologically, but for a blog that I put in my rss for critical thinking, this is a disappointment. I saw the disclaimer, and I hope that is true, and you don’t really seriously think there is anything of reality here.
Don’t forget the website – Screw Loose Change (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/) It’s a bit old, but I doubt that much has changed in this conspiracy theory. They rarely do.
“The 9/11 truthers present an insult to truth, scholarship, journalism, inquiry etc.”
Hear, hear!
I recommend “Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in shaping Modern History” by David Aaronovich. Contains a nice chapter on the original Loose Change and related phenomena. (Hint: it’s getting deliciously thoroughly debunked)
I totally agree with Arthur, after all this time and after being debunked so thoroughly it’s just disingenuous to present this as anything other than fearmongering. In fact I would put money on there being not a single non-debunked, remotely valid point in the entire video. The only people who believe it simply don’t know the science behind it.
Derren does things like science of scams, not to mention he’s a magician , surely that means his blog should be less credulous to things like this. And it’s not the first piece of absolute pseudoscience and shoddy reporting thereof. Remote viewing anyone?
Honestly, I like what Derren does, but his blog is no better than any given tabloid. he really needs to keep his own people in check. and have some skeptical quality control on what gets posted on his own site.
*unsubscribed*
Arthur: Or you could just follow his Twitter, and not click on the blog links. Most of what’s on the blog isn’t posted by Derren, it’s posted by Phillis as something for us to discuss. I don’t think any of the crew take this sort of thing as literal truth, they’re just stirring up a debate.
- Yes, we are in no way forcing anyone to buy this DVD. Had it not changed significantly I wouldn’t have reviewed it. We got exactly the same amount of flack over the “official US” theory of why the towers collapsed with engineers and the like saying the official line was also bull – Phillis
I’m with Josh and Arthur here.
Conspiracy theories can be fun to read about, but the fact that things like this are taken seriously by so many people is rather scary. I think this “opens a debate” in the way that creationism does, not really by giving more sides to the story but rather by presenting an overwhelming amount of misinformation.
I’m a bit surprised things like this are posted on Derren Brown’s blog, of all places. As many people have said here, most of its points have been debunked many times. Isn’t this conspiracy turning into a matter of faith?
- When the first version came out there was a lot of support for it – the latest version has changed considerably since the 2007 version. If the movie is easily debunked then there will be links to it on here for everyone to check out – Phillis
George Monbiot wrote an interesting response to the 2007 version of this film:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/06/comment.film
- True Lucy this is a review of the older version (the one that comes across as really nutty). The newer version cut’s a lot of this stuff out. It’s quite different from the older versions. – Phillis
Whether you believe it or not, it will certainly stir up some shit.
*DELETES A BIG LONG POST*
So hard to keep..mouth…shut..
; )
Hmmm, ok, we have their word that there were explosives in the building already. I think that’s the strongest piece of evidence in that clip and it’s a difficult one to prove. Jet fuel burns pretty hot in an enclosed space, and even the firemen reporting from the site were watching people on fire coming from the liftshaft.
I know Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, but then why the tenuous link with Osama bin Laden that was barely credible even when it first emerged?
If I was going to justify a war in Iraq using 9/11 I’d want to pin it straight on Saddam Hussein without some tenuous scarceley credible middleman (Saddam and Osama were barely on speaking terms at the time). If you were going to fake it, why not make the terrorists Iraqi?
There was a conspiracy in terms of the link to Iraq, but I seriously doubt this account.
http://www.debunking911.com/
Covers most if not all of the wacko theories around 9/11.
I’m not a Bill Maher fan, but I think he got it spot on on this. “There’s one way we can know the Bush administration didn’t orchestrate 9/11. Because it worked.”
Did nothing to stop it, yes, but orchestrated it?
Idiotic. Easily debunked and shown up as a pack of fancy wrapped up in lies. If you want to enjoy fantasy, read some Tolkien but don’t be so disrespectful to the almost 3000 dead to make up stories about their demise. for your thrills.
Just google it
The public debate, will always be compromised by the fact that not all information is available for scrutiny. At best, the debate follows the best of scientific practices of questioning the information available, in order for a better (but incomplete) understanding. At worst, it justifies and encourages political and emotional responses, before the truth is known. Unfortunately the US government is seemingly guilty of such response. It is not surprising they are viewed with doubt and hostility, especially when they withhold information vital to the debate, and its conclusion. Of course they could very well be justified, we just don’t know yet. So for the large part the western world have given our politicians the benefit of the doubt. A powerful notion. Should the crimes of war ever be the ‘benefit’ of doubt?
Maybe you can also recommend some documentaries on the flat earth, secret Nazi bases on the moon, or the Royal Family actually being giant alien lizards in disguise (who, incidentally, control the world’s heroin trade)?
I’ve seen “Loose Change” and it’s paranoid garbage. The usual apocalyptic New World Order schtick with “facts” debunked many times over. Some people may have questions over events around 9/11 – this will NOT answer them. Unless you’re a survivalist living in the mountains who thinks the Illuminati are running the world.
A “conspiracy” on the scale that is suggested would involve hundreds of people – not one of whom has talked? Really?
But then I still think Oswald wasn’t acting alone, so what do I know?
Speaking as a structural engineer, I’m a little offended. Our sample size for experiments of ‘what happens when a plane crashes into a skyscraper’ is two. There’s very little (read: no) evidence that would support them continuing to stand. Airplanes are quite heavy, and airplanes that crash into things are not particularly structurally sound, nor are the things they crash into. But I don’t need to debunk it – virtually every engineering organization already has, and some thorough debunkings have already taken place re: Loose Change.
I love the twitter account, but there’s a fine line between “ooh neat” and “oh, a crazy.” This one’s the latter.
I was gutted to see a link to Loose change here. I see it as on a par with linking to Expelled.
Critical analysis of the claims in this video leave it in tatters.
WHY DID BUILDING 7 FALL?
It was hit by building 2 as it fell, and the resulting fire weakened the steel.
NO OTHER STEEL BUILDING HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY FIRE!
In the last half century firefighting abilities have prevented any building burning long enough for the steel to weaken. Go back to WW2 and before and loads of steel buildings fell due to fire. Not bombs, fire.
YOU CAN SEE building 7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
Go to youtube and find some videos of controlled demolitions. You can even use the ones featured in Loose Change. Just before the building falls youll see many tiny flashes. These are the primary charges. The building 7 footage has no flashes.
People talk about these internet documentaries, praising their ‘wealth of information’, which never seems to stand up as accurate information. Its unfortunately easy it take hold of subject in the world and present a ‘wealth of information’ to support a particular view.
What is even more unfortunate is that people who have no real knowledge of the subject take the ideas that it presents a lot, and possibly answers a lot, and takes it at face value. Almost all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories remind me quite literally of religion. The plausible disinformation to fill the gaps in a viewers knowledge.
Not to mention the psychology of presenting information of this type to an audience that actively wants to believe in this. Refer to cold reading, the greatest asset to becoming a plausible medium is the audience wanting to believe.
- I agree Jack. Lots of info doesn’t make it good info (os reliable). However I wish more DVD’s simply contained the amount of stuff that was on here like the NIST report. The intro section about other similar terror incidents is very interesting and nothing to do with 9/11 really.- Phillis
I’m with Arthur.
Loose Change comes out, it gets debunked. Loose Change gets changed, it gets debunked. It gets changed, it gets debunked. Every version of this film been debunked so many times that there can be little doubt about the intellectual integrity of the authors.
They’re analogous to vaccine deniers; no matter if you shoot down their most ‘convincing’ argument, the one they insist is the smoking gun, they come back with a new most convincing argument that must be the smoking gun.
It’s wasted the time of hundreds of experts, mislead countless hundreds and distracted from the real crimes of the Bush administration and how it dealt with a terrorist attack. The Bush administration must have loved it for keeping the spotlight off the real issues.
Randi’s expression “Unsinkable Rubber Ducks” comes to mind…
Simple way to end this argument and conspiricy theory: release the footage of the plane crashing into the pentagon. That video footage would end any argument and conspiricy theory and would provide conclusive proof that it was (potentially) a terrorist attack.
The pentagon attack raises the most questions (look at photos before the collapse) but can be explained by providing the evidence above… They have the tapes, so show the proof!
The documentary raises interesting questions about the attack and shows some contradictions and evidence that questions the official story. But of course, this was all planned in a cave in Tora Bora…
…. con’t
It’s all very well to veil a blog post like this as an exploration of all possibilities, but that just doesn’t hold water. Where are your posts refering to Holocaust denial, there is plenty of hollow evidence for that, yet we see no posts of that nature? Why? Both 9/11 conspiracy and the holocaust (by the way, I am NOT comparing the two events as equals, merely as minority theories against general consensus) have been thoroughly de-bunked. Again, to mention mediums, a minority, which has been thoroughly de-bunked. Yet people believe whole heartedly in it, despite the contradictory information freely available.
I must admit, I’m am disappointed that a good blog like this would go down this route, and use the veil of plausibility “viewing all possibilities”.
… It would be nice to get reaction to these comments from the blog.
Hey Phillis,
Have you seen Fall of the Republic by Alex Jones?Great info,share your thoughts
- Alex gets a bit “shouty” for me, when he screams “wake up people you’re living in a dream world” he get’s my back up. I have seen his stuff though. – Phillis
While I do not believe in a full-blown conspiracy (for the very good reasons already mentioned by jonniemarbles), and I have not watched the video (though i will) I do believe that a very small number of people may possibly have known about the attack in the higher echelons of the US intelligence service and government. If the conspiracy was any larger then it would have failed to remain a secret. However, humans are very capable of committing the most awful atrocities if they can be convinced that what they are doing is right, necessary or just (or very enjoyable). Dresden, Hiroshima, eugenics, slavery, capital punishment, intelligent and articulate suicide bombers, collateral damage, 1.5 million dead Iraqis, all justified in the minds of the perpetrators. Morality and ethics are a beautiful, precious illusion that is easily distorted.
I haven’t read any reports on this, official or otherwise. I do remember where I was when it happened.
I think that IF there is a conspiracy, it only involves the falling of the buildings. The footage looks like highly skilled building demolition. It is possible but a little incredible that they both fell in such a manner.
Is it possible for them to have been demolished in order to prevent damage being caused to further buildings and by-standers? It would be a tough call to make but necessary and unpopular as there were people still inside those buildings.
IF this is the case, it would have been authorised by someone. It would have to be secret as it would be a highly controversial act and probably illegal. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Most other inconsistancies can be put down to false memories and massive chaos.
I think south park hit the nail on the head in that episode where they pointed out that the government can be more in control, simply by making people think its more in control than it is. 9/11 was the result of massive incompetence and yet somehow people have flipped that and decided it must be the result of incredible competency.
I don’t fully believe the official myth, (I personally doubt osama bin laden had much, if anything to do with it) and the government certainly used 9/11 as an excuse for doing what ever it wanted. But was 9/11 an inside job? Not a chance.
How many of you that chastise this documentary have actually watched it yourselves? Or have you come to your conclusions by those that chastise and ridicule it?
Just because you don’t think it’s possible… doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. I didn’t think it was possible for planes to fly into buildings in an at of terror… but they did.
Watching with an open mind and a blank canvas is what it is all about.
See ya later Arthur
@Arthur..yawn….think you missed a bit in the text.
PLEASE NOTE: We’d love your intelligent opinions if you’ve seen this movie or questions if you haven’t. The movie in no way represents our views we’re open to debate from both sides. I will have to delete any comments containing foul language or comments mentioning the intelligence of individuals as I know this topic attracts those with a short, dismissive temper. Those people will be given a pointy hat with a D on it and told to sit in the corner.
See the comments on Phillis’ previous blog post on this for some useful links:
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/09/simulation-shows-world-trade-center-towers-fell-heat/
@Arthur – what Channel 4 documentary?
@JonnieMarbles – re: Whistleblowers – Feel free to Google… Richard Andrew Grove, Sibel Edmonds, Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, Indira Singh, Stanley Hilton, Special Agent Robert Wright, David Schippers, Randy Glass, David MacMichael, Delmart Edward Vreeland, Michael Springman, and a bunch of others you’ll find in lists of varying reliability across Teh Interwebs.
I make no assumptions about who was responsible or complicit, but the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. The official explanation for 9/11 is riddled with flawed science, and it amazes me how anyone who questions this is dismissed as a conspiracy nut.
Agree 100% with Arthur. Nice film or not, this topic should not be presented in any sense that there may be some truth to it. Especially in Derren name.
- We presented the other side of the argument earlier last month (and were criticised for that – lol) and as we have said we are not endorsing the views of the DVD, simply announcing that it is available for those who wish to view it. – Phillis
I was totally sold on this “conspiracy” after I saw the first loose change in ‘05.
I look forward to seeing the updated version.
It’s no wonder some people find it completely and utterly inconcievable. To be honest, I do too when I think about the motives and the slaughter involved in achieving these. It doesn’t seem worth it. And one would think the most powerful government in the world could cover their tracks better if it were true?
That said, the facts are really solid. And it’s not just one thing that needs answering… it’s many.
Charlie Sheens ‘20 mins with the president’ is a good introduction to this ‘conspiracy’ too.
(I actually find this being labled as a conspiracy a little bit disrespectful to the people who lost their lives and those fighting to find the truth)
It’s okay to keep an open mind, but it’s also important to remember that not all opinions are equally worth considering. In the interest of balance, I would also suggest watching the following three TV shows directly after Loose Change:
The Conspiracy Files – 9/11 (BBC, 3rd June 2007)
The Conspiracy Files – 9/11, The Third Tower (BBC, 6th July 2008)
Penn & Teller: Bullsh***! – Conspiracy Theories (May 9th 2005)
For a thorough analysis of Loose Change, see this site: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/. They haven’t fully analyzed the latest version of the movie, but for previous versions they released an annotated video pointing out the lies and mistakes.
The permanent top post on that site includes links to lists of the lies behind Loose Change.
For a thorough analysis of Loose Change, search for the site called “Screw Loose Change”. They haven’t fully analyzed the latest version of the movie, but for previous versions they released an annotated video pointing out the lies and mistakes.
The permanent top post on that site includes links to lists of the lies behind Loose Change.
I have had a great deal of respect for you before reading your blog and after readong this blog, my respect for you has tripled to say the least.
There are few very amazing documentaries that cover things in more detail amongst which is:
Zetigeist
In Lies We Trust
Global Governance
and many more which are all accessible online.
If you are pressed for time and can only watch one, then I strongly recommend Zeitgeist (the latest version which is about 2 hours and 10 minutes long and made up of 5 different parts)
and as for the negatory comments that you may receive, if one person in this world knows the power of suggestion it is undoubtably you and you know how media can make us lose all our senses and the power of reasoning sometimes, so…..
- I’ve seen Zietgeist. It’s opening 15 minutes is a music video and the following 20 is riddled with mistakes. It’s nice but needs a good reworking before I think it’s worthy of documentary status – Phillis
I’m STILL getting “Oh DERREN!” comments. As I’ve said we got a lot of flack for not presenting this side of the story last time – and this was posted by PHILLIS. So I presume that people are looking at the title and then commenting.
Loose Change is controversial, polemical and open to criticism, but it does raise some serious questions. I’m not convinced by its claims regarding the Pentagon attack or flight 93, but on the collapse of the 3 towers, it is the debunking that fails to convince. I watched the BBC ‘Conspiracy Files’ documentaries in the hope that they would offer satisfactory explanations of the towers’ collapses, but all they do is recap the theories in the official NIST report. Most independent scientists and engineers who have considered the matter agree that NIST’s conclusions are far from satisfactory, and that the evidence clearly favours controlled demolition. For a proper scientific examination of the evidence, one should compare this presentation with the polemic in both The Conspiracy Files and Loose Change:
The following link is for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://is.gd/4RLzQ
Oh, Phillis.
Very disappointing levels of critical thinking, and way too much credulity here. Not what I expect to be associated with DB’s name.
“What’s probably the most interesting thing about is the sheer amount of information that’s contained within. Without a doubt it’s research is more in depth and comprehensive than any official story I’ve seen and the collection of documents and footage is impressive to say the least.”
That’s not “opening the debate”. That’s an endorsement. What about the fact that many of the claims made in the film have already been adequately debunked (adequately, that is, unless you’re emotionally invested in the idea of there being a historically unprecedented conspiracy of people prepared to murder their own citizens for a singularly unclear reason)? What about the application of Occam’s razor?
- This is a new release that has been considerably changed. I agree the old one was cut to bits but this has changed. I’ve seen one program that argues against a much older, poorly constructed version of a free download (and the NIST report which misses a lot of information) and thats all (thanks to all those posting links I’ll get around to them). If there was any conspiracy theory here I wouldn’t be allowing your comments or other links through. We do seem to have 2 sets of people clearly on both sides – if one side considerably updates their side of the story it should be aired in order to “re-debunk”. Keep smiling – Phillis
Addendum: Loose Change is to some extent a straw man. It makes so many extraordinary claims that it’s almost impossible for them all to be true; if just one or two of them are, that would be shocking enough. Conspiracy theories tend to be inherently unlikely, which is why we must demand high standards of proof. However, we know that not ALL conspiracy theories turn out to be false: the Iran-Contra affair, the 1973 coup in Chile, Enron, etc.
I don’t make a habit of believing in conspiracy theories, but there comes a point where evidence cannot be ignored and one must think the unthinkable. At present, I do believe that elements of the US Govt probably had foreknowledge of the attacks and that the WTC towers were brought down by those with foreknowledge, for both financial and political reasons.
Putting into mind how the government actually works, if their government didn’t blow up the towers, there is always the case of what level they actually work at; global domination is still at place. The things America will do for power..
Iraq was an independant country, Sadam was not selling out his oil like America wanted him to, war is the final result of resistance. Imperialism is full blown, and yet so well hidden, big companies raping lands (like Africa) for their resources and making their people work for so little, it only happens when their countries leaders give in, if they refuse, they die.
There’s worse things that the government do other than to blow up their own towers. (you should of seen the stock market predictions that were made – ironic) continue to be brainwashed and let the subliminal media messages take over. bb
If you want everything to be cleared up, watch this – http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&ei=HxjKSsTMHZTCqAOxq7SRBg&q=zeitgeist+addendum&hl=en&client=firefox-a#
It’s the second one, put together so well.
Dear god. Do you ragers all get this incensed every time you read an idea you think is incorrect, or does this blog incite a special fury when it posts different points of view?
Just want to second LawnBoy’s recommendation of “Screw loose change”.
My personal opinion is that Loose Change plays into a particular set of flaws in reason we humans seem to have.
Incredible! Some topics just can’t be debated as both sides immediately fly off the handle at the mere mention. I’ve been coming here for nearly a year and this blog is always informative and as far as I’m concerned I don’t see anything other than this being brought to light and saying that it’s now very grown up. Doesn’t make it right!
Intelligence is the ability to listen and comprehend other peoples ideas without having to accept them. I feel the more inflammatory comments here are not made by people who have even attempted this. I DISAGREE with Loose Change but I wouldn’t want a lot of these people to back me up in a real debate as they have engaged emotions first and brains second.
Sometimes people have different opinions. They should be allowed to air them and certainly don’t shoot the messenger.
I tend not to really look at these things… no matter who or what did it, it still doesn’t change the fact that the world was shook with fear, it became a turning point in human history, and thousands of innocent people died in a horrific and tragic way. I wouldn’t want to cheapen their memory with any kind of silly stories.
A rebuttal to your rebuttal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Phillis- I’m sorry you’re gettng rude comments for posting this. You do a great job maintaining the blog- it’s one of my favorites. Yay you!
Quick question. If Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, why isn’t it listed on his posting on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List? You can ask about this and the response is always the same, no proof.
Okay, I didn’t get through all of the comments but… really upsetting to see this on Derren’s blog.
I don’t really have anything else to say. It’s just a little painful to see this silliness linked on a site that I was defending as a center for rationality.
I’m not completely shattered or anything, just upset.
Hell, 25 years ago I firmly believed in flying saucers.
The one thing that strikes me about conspiracy theories is that they seem to raise all sorts of unanswered questions or lack of evidence. Its ok to ask questions and say “Here is a question that hasn’t been answered or evidence that hasn’t been explained”
But conspriacy theorists come up with a flawed logic that say only the government could have done this because of X therefore it is a government conspiracy, without having any real evidence.
They use a very simple flawed principal, which is that nothing can ever be proven 100%, so therefore you can’t prove God isn’t real, you can’t prove it wasn’t a government conspiracy, you can’t prove there isn’t a planet somewhere populated by Elvis clones.
What they convenietly ignore is that we can prove that in the balance probabilities that these things almost certainly are not true or real
@Kitty’s Bitch “It’s just a little painful to see this silliness linked on a site that I was defending as a center for rationality.”
That’s basically it. And it’s depressing.
None of these recurring examples of pseudoscience and pseudoscholarship should be encouraged anywhere which is linked to a public figure who claims to debunk ‘the science of scams’ . Be it creationism, homeopathy, AIDS denialism, holocaust denialism, moon landing claims, global warming denialists, 9/11 truthers etc. They’ve all been shown to be inane agenda driven drivel, and have all been debunked time and time again.
- Penn and Teller released an episode on Bullshit on “global warming hysteria” where they sat of the opposite side of the fence? There’s 2 sides to that debate too (I personally disagree with them). Furthermore we have clearly stated that the movie in NO WAY represents our views. We WANT you to question this new release (I take it you’ve not seen it) and give you a platform to do so. – Phillis
In 2007, Richard Dawkins interviewed Derren Brown as a voice of reason in his “Enemies of reason” TV documentary. The full interview is available on YouTube. In the same documentary, Dawkins ended his film with the following;
“The impersonal algorithms of internet search engines do not weed out robust evidence from unsourced, uncorroborated assertion. Paranoid conspiracy theories circulate on the web unchallenged, from harmless fun about fake moon landings to downright insidious lies about 9/11 or the highly damaging but ultimately discredited scare over the MMR vaccine.”
Dawkins was worried, and he was right to be worried.
This is video is good.
Already posted, but here it is for people who skip to the bottom comments
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&ei=zjNySe-6Bouk-wGi06TkCw&q=Screw+Loose+Change+Movie&hl=en#
There is so much more information out there, this barely scratches the surface of de-bunking the 9/11 conspiracies.
I can’t say this post on the blog has upset my love for it, its a great blog, and Phillis was simply trying to show another side to a story. It’s just a shame that the de-bunking has yet to have as wide an audience as the conspiracy.
Lets hope this fad ends soon…
- This video debunks the old version – the new version is considerably different. And yes there’s not a good “debunked” video out there – pity I’d like to see it.
Phillis, I am interested in your comment about sitting on the fence.
Given Derren’s profile and his apparent desire to spead critical thinking, I would expect you to also be a critical thinker. As such I would expect your default position to be skeptisism.
I’m reminded of Bertrand Russells celestrial teapot. Saying it’s there doesn’t make the likelyhood 50/50
Extraordinary require extraordinary proof.
Loose Change makes a massive claim, but the evidence is innuendo, shotgunning irrelevant facts and facts now demonstrated to be false.
You are on the fence? Put your best skeptical hat on and watch it again. Does it really hold water?
- My stance is as follows. The original version of the docu made some outlandish claims and looked pretty nasty – I think it not only had the look of a nutty vid it contained obvious contradictions. This version was pretty much ripped to shreds. Since then they’ve completely revamped the movie. It now looks like a well put together, professional documentary and has thrown up new ideas (explosive material found embedded in the rubble, no distress codes sent by the pilots, the official report ignored building 7, no debris found at the site of the mine). If you’ve seen the old movie you WONT recognise this version. Gone are all the dreadful music videos, the crappy production and the constant claims to a new world order (although admittedly there’s still some towards the end). I too don’t think the US government are that organised and the movie has even shifted blame towards large corporations. But this no longer looks like the original movie – it now looks like a well made convincing case. Do I think the US government orchestrated the attacks? – no, I’d need more evidence than the current “missing” evidence – do I think this new release has considerably calmed down, scrubbed up and moved it’s focus? – yes. Do I think most of the people here who are ranting have seen the new version? – no (and so of course I understand why) – Phillis
Wow! There’s some really shouty people here. As far as I can see this is a new version of an old film. If someone can’t raise the issue without everyone screaming that Derrens become a conspiracy nut then we live in a sad world. What part of “NO WAY” don’t you understand? I don’t like the 9/11 truthers in any way and see them regularly all around NY. They’re more organised and bigger than ever. But they have a right to free speech and a right to release a video. If you argue against it without seeing it your WORSE than them as they will always be more informed with new stuff. The day Derren say’s he’s on their side then I’ll get worried. But he hasn’t, he simply said “they’re back bigger and better”. Fair Point. Keep up the good work DB.
Phyllis, I hope you don’t mind me addressing TheHead here directly.
TheHead wants the video footage at the Pentagon released.
I guess this theory is that the masterful plot involved using three planes as battering rams (failing with 1 in Pennsylvania) and taking a fourth plane, killing everyone on it, and sending in a missile instead.
TheHead, I think your logical reasoning skills are sorely in need of a brushup.
The Truth about 9/11 is that we don’t know the truth about 9/11 – and we should
Screw Loos Change- “Not Freakin’ Again” edition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#
Assuming this has not yet been posted. If you have yet to watch, go watch this and you will see why this whole movie is nonsense. This guy offers full explanations and addresses nearly every point.
- this is to the SECOND edition. The one here is the 5th edition(significantly different to v2). But thanks for the link.-phillis
Architects and Engineers seem to know a little more about structural engineering then most people here so…
For you Derren;
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
Don’t mind your critics, Phillis. I’m glad you posted it. You’re right about ‘Loose Change’ evolving into something slick and appealing. I downloaded the 2009 version and found it unrecognisable, even from the ‘Final Cut’ version of 2007. The important word there is ‘evolving’, though, in my humble opinion. The wild theories of the original edition have been debunked, but I think this latest version asks new, perhaps more reasonable and fundamental questions, all of which surely deserve answers, even if only to ensure the new claims of conspiracy are all ultimately debunked. It’s the scientific method, unless I completely misunderstand the concept – a theory or hypothesis is put forward, critically examined under peer review, then disproved, new hypothesis put forward… and so on.
Sadly, the Penn & Teller video is a typical ‘debunking’ in that it’s full of expletives but offers nothing by way of proper argument. What the debunkers really need to explain is how 3 separate skyscrapers can collapse at near freefall speed, symmetrically, into their own footprints, within hours on the same day, solely from fire and impact damage (WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane), when no high rise building has ever previously collapsed in this way, although several have been engulfed by fire before. The fires were nowhere near hot enough to melt steel, even at the affected floors, let alone further down. It is the debunkers who believe in a fairy tale – as told in the NIST report. With a PhD in Engineering, and degrees in Maths, Physics and Psychology, I’m quite able to judge scientific evidence.
- Just asking but have you read the NIST report? Building 7 was significantly damaged by a very large piece of debris from the top part of one of the towers. It ate a large chunk in to the backside of the building and would have caused at least some structural damage. Not dismissing what your saying here I just prefer the full facts to be known. – Phillis
P.S. Amusingly, when I tried to quote Penn & Teller directly, the system wouldn’t let me post, because the video is virtually just a stream of 4-letter words, which get blocked here: not exactly rational argument. Still, I do recommend that people watch it, because it’s total drivel, and yet some people think it qualifies as ‘debunking’.
I love when you’re bossy Phillis!
Like I’ve said before, I did not wish to believe this when I first started weeks of research into this. But, until more evidence of the planes crashing into the Pentagon etc is released by the US government (why wouldn’t they be released? What do they have to hide? No plane crash?) then I have no choice but to be of the opinion that all is not as it seems. Please watch this. Please at least have this in the back of your mind when they start to chip humans. It’s coming sooner than you think peeps.
I agree with JonnieMarbles comment.
I watched this a while ago and bought into it to a certain extent. Discussed it with some friends who had seen it and have since bought and read quite a few books on the subject and other similar theories based around that day. I have also watched zeitgeist which has some connection in its content and the theories surrounding WHY this was supposedly done by the US Government.
However JonnieMarbles was spot on with, how many people can keep a secret? how many people are needed to orchistrate such an event?? With news and tabloids and the internet that we have connection to these days, somone would have let something slip. An administrator at a demolision company being used, the sister of the wife of a government agent “IN” on it etc. Someone would let slip. No secret of that magnitude can be kept quiet.
- OK I’ll say this one last time, I’m sure it will get ignored. THIS VERSION IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE OLDER VERSIONS. So yes the old bedroom quality rant version isn’t really worth the pixels it’s burnt on. This version changes THE FOCUS quite a lot – hence the review. If the moon landing nuts came up with a NEW THEORY then it would require a NEW RESPONSE (probably thicker tin hats but hopefully you get my point). Ah well I live in hope that one day someone listens. – Phillis
@ Will & JonnieMarbles: You ask a perfectly good question: Where are the whistleblowers? They are actually numerous, but they are mostly ignored by the media or subject to official gagging. When they aren’t ignored, they are abused or mocked as ‘conspiracy nuts’. Interestingly, they are given much more attention outside the UK and US.
Juliet posted these names earlier, but again FYI: Richard Andrew Grove, Sibel Edmonds, Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, Indira Singh, Stanley Hilton, Special Agent Robert Wright, David Schippers, Randy Glass, David MacMichael, Delmart Edward Vreeland, Michael Springman, etc.
When you consider the costs associated with breaking ranks, it’s amazing that so many people have. Also, almost no one will have the whole picture; just fragments of it.
Why was my other comment removed?
There was no foul language. It wasn’t angry in it’s tone. There weren’t any insults.
I drew an analogy that I was afraid would come off as smarmy sounding so I included an apology for it, but it was the only analogy that illustrated my point. I don’t understand.
Phillis, what’s going on here?
- Sorry we get LOADS of spam somedays and every now and again comment’s get caught up in it. – Phillis
Phillis
The comment was up yesterday. It has since been removed.
I’m getting a really bad vibe here.
- YES I’m targeting you and you only “Kitty’s …uh Bitch”…? – your comment was a huge threat to the million plus people who visit here and it had to GO! Potentially traffic shatteringly dangerous, might ruin DB’s career, or mine or… uh…. The only thing left to do is form your own conspiracy theory and then we can have a little party with tin hats! Anyone ever told you you’re paranoid? No? oh well there’s always next year. By the way this comment will never make it past next week as I will delete it in the shame I may be exposed to. I hope (as an overweight man in his 30’s) I have just the right dress for the occasion – Phillis
Haha PWNED. KittyB, with all due respect, you come off as “smarmy” anyway. Crazy brits!
Can I just say that this just came out in the US, has had quite a bit press already and is now distributed by Microcinema International as an official release, hence all the publicity. As an indie film maker myself I admire it even though I DISAGREE with conclusions. It goes a bit too far, but people feel cheated over here and there’s some good stuff in it that I DO agree with whole heartedly.
The profits from this movie helps First Responders, a group of people totally ignored by the government of both Bush and Obama. You’re not close enough to know what really happened here in NY and being an arm chair critic is easy. Why not stop being so angry and get off your ass and actually do something about it.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com
- Again something that’s been missed out is the fact this movie was free before and is now released commercially to raise money for those forgotten in the first clean up operations (again featured on the DVD extras). If you can support the foundation and help the rescue workers – people who have been completely passed over – they risk death and bankruptcy due to illness from being there when it mattered. (and please any US health care debates will be ignored, stick to the debate) – Phillis
Wow!
My faith is restored in Derren Brown.. See its not him that puts up this information its his cronies. Nevertheless a tree is known by its fruit. I commend who ever put this up. I condemn them for moderating the replies. Who controls information? Who is behind Derren Brown? What tree did he spring from? It is bold to ask the questions these documentaries declare.
I bet Derren Brown is conflicted about this issue. When someone positions themselves in a place to give people the real truth and the real story and to in effect pull the veil from the charletons and tricksters and place their faith in the bringer of light, they inadvertantly hold it directly in front of themselves. And we can see their boogers.
Money moves the world. Derren Brown can probably convincingly sneeze a gold coin from his nose. But only in dim light…
- have you been drinking? – Phillis
Sorry.. I was. But then again wouldn’t you be drinking too if the world was going to end in 2012 and the Government was plastering the media with lies, and The only place of peace and sanity on the internet was as bloated and coercive as the rest of the possible points of interest in the web. Should be trust you phillis or should we trust our government? I don’t know? Lets have a beer summit to discuss this further. Just don’t bring Derren wit you. I don’t want to think I am drinking some fine Newcastle bubbly wonder and find out later it was piss. IT leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Jokes on you.
I KNEW IT!!
It’s you that keeps beaming these damned voices into my head, isn’t it?!?!
The greys warned me about you.
Hi Phillis. Yes, I’ve read the relevant sections of the NIST report (although not ALL of it I must admit). Indeed, WTC 7 suffered some impact damage from debris, but it certainly wasn’t hit by a jetliner loaded with fuel. The NIST report contains some extremely poor physics regarding the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that it did not go down at freefall speed, when in fact it did for a significant portion of the time. This means that there was, for several seconds, NO resistance at all to the collapse. This is only possible by controlled demolition. The following video by a high-school physics teacher blows a very large hole in NIST’s findings, and should be compulsory viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8&feature=related
Please do watch it; it’s very well argued and the maths is simple enough.
P.S. Just to clarify: the NIST report denies freefall. It has to, because the implication of WTC 7 being in freefall, even for a second, is that the entire structural support of the building has been suddenly removed. This cannot happen due to fire or partial impact damage: it is literally impossible. Freefall can only be denied by ignoring the evidence concerning the instantaneous acceleration of the building, and choosing instead a convenient starting point for calculating the collapse time.
This video is essentially a scientific proof that WTC 7 at least was deliberately demolished. No other hypothesis is even remotely likely. Note the symmetry of the collapse. Fire / impact damage would lead to crumbling and toppling. Note also that there is no buckling of the perimeter walls, which NIST’s ‘piledriver’ theory requires.
Correction: The preliminary NIST report denies freefall, but the final report accepts a period of freefall collapse. It just ignores the fact that this is totally inconsistent with its own favoured hypothesis, whilst being 100% consistent with controlled demolition.
Thanks, Phillis for a very nice and tidy – rare, in that way – discussion of pros and cons. Thanks for your excellent moderation of the debate. As a service to the many «skeptics of the skeptics» who still haven’t gotten around to seeing the September 22, 2009 release of Loose Change, titled «An American Coup», I’d like to direct you to this page, where you can preview the documentary in flash video (before buying).
http://www.911truth.no/dokumentar/