Loose Change - Final Cut - New Chapter - Planes
DHS Thu, 12/06/2007 - 8:25pm
Loose Change - Final Cut - New Chapter - Planes
This is another chapter of Loose Change - Final Cut which is not in the movie. The chapter is called Planes.
- DHS's blog
- Login to post comments
Jason Bermas interview
Here's an interview with Jason Bermas 12/07/07.
MP3 Audio Clip - Philip Zelicow
Friday December 7, 2007
Dark Angel and 9/11 Executive Director Philip Zelicow Talks To NPR About Deleted CIA Torture Tapes
* source = http://www.npr.org
-----------------------------------
More MP3 Audio Clips >
Why wasn't this in the full movie?
WTF???
Look boss, de planes.
It is in there under the "extra" heading in my copy.
By the way, I finally watched the movie objectively and alertly tonight and I can honestly say this is an unqualified work of art.
Even the most skeptical debunker will have a hard time finding fault with this version, if they actually watch the entire movie with an objective and open mind.
Congrats LTW. Brilliant job.
That was good
In my opinion, it should have been kept in the final cut.
But the film's great anyway, so no matter.
I hear ya
As the director and editor, I agree.
Alot of picture and film houses were telling us they wouldn't show a documentary more than two hours long. In the 11th hour, the movie was still 2 hours and 20 minutes long ... and we needed a quick solution.
I'll be back, I promise. :)
Keep up the good work.
The title LCFC, hopefully, is misunderstood with the Final Cut inference. This story is just way too big, important, meaningful, and ongoing to be expressed in just a evolutionary trilogy review.
This is a work in progress and all LC crew will have their life's work still ahead waiting to unfold the truth of the most heinous criminal act in history. It's fortunate you are all young because your work is just beginning.
Flight 93 discussion in LCFC
As a whole, I quite like the latest incarnation of Loose Change. Just a quick minor criticism in haste.
The segment dealing with flight 93 ends a bit abruptly with the suggestion that the plane might have been shot down. The animation gives the impression that it fell down, with a wing cut off by a missile. That would not explain the lack of debris at the alleged crash site. It would also not explain the reported miles-wide distribution of debris.
One gets the impression that the shotdown scenario somehow solves these issues, but it does not.
A BOMB would explain
A BOMB would explain it...
which is exactly what was reported to be on the plane if you listen to the tapes.
Makes sense to me.
/////////////////////
http://www.swatcash.com/dhs
bomb on flight 93
A bomb exploding high up in the sky would indeed explain the 8-mile debris radius. I don't recall that being discussed in LC, however. Correct me if I'm wrong.
On the other hand, a bomb would hardly explain the debrisless hole in the ground.
It is all a mystery to me.
What about a bomb exploding
What about a bomb exploding as it crashes into the ground?
/////////////////////
http://www.swatcash.com/dhs
The debris-less hole on the
The debris-less hole on the ground can be explained by the fact that the plane was being driven at a very high rate of speed into the soft ground of a landfill. The same principle applies to AAL77's apparent lack of debris at the Pentagon crash site. We are accustomed to seeing crash scenes in which the plane floated slowly to the ground-- while perhaps the crew desperately tried to prepare for a crash landing. In the case of the 9/11 crashes, there was no crew, and whoever was controlling the planes via remote control had an interest in obliterating as much evidence as possible so as to cover up their crime.
Consider this rough analogy. You throw a rock at a window. The glass shatters all over the place and the rock remains resting on the window sill. Now fire a .22 bullet through another window. The bullet, because it is moving at such a high velocity, will make a clean little hole in the window, perhaps leaving only a few cracks, before continuing into the building. Such was a similar scenario at the crash scenes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
As for the debris field at Shanksville. Perhaps a suitcase bomb went off seconds before the crash. That would explain the hole in the fuselage, and would not require the very unlikely participation of the US Military in the 9/11 attacks. Such as explosion may also have occurred on AAL77, explaining why the government is so unwilling to release the video tapes of the crash.
I've always leaned toward
I've always leaned toward their being some type of bomb, since it was reported early that there was, and the tapes include audio where a bomb on board is mentioned.
/////////////////////
http://www.swatcash.com/dhs
The debri-less hole in the ground
could also be explained as follows. Let's say an Air Force plane launched a missile at Flight 93 and missed. A second missile is fired, which hits the plane. The plane disintegrates and wreckage is strewn about. The first missile spirals around, runs out of fuel, and plows into the ground, creating the 'debri-less' hole when its explosive charge detonates on impact.
This seems plausible to me and is supported by the lack of recognizable wreckage at the hole. However, it is pure speculation.
I agree
This provides valuable information. The Mineta section at the end was unnecessary, though.
In my opinion, the Able Danger section could have been shorter in the finalized version. Some of this could be used to replace it.
And now that I remembered: at one point in LCFC Dylan's voice is completely engulfed by music so that the end of his sentence cannot be heard at all.
Wow
Just hearing the air traffic controllers respond to the situation with laughter and, "Cool!" was more than enough reason to leave it in. Quality material boys.
I thought about that too
But I guess if I had trained all my career for an emergency scenario like that I guess I would pretty excited when one actually happened.
Who are you talkin' about
And what fake video is it?
Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.
The new Loose Change is
The new Loose Change is excellent. I've given it to four people who were not open to the idea of investigating 911. They haven't done any research but agreed to watch Loose Change just to quiet me . Well, after seeing the new Loose Change, three are now certain the official story is a lie and the other woman is extremely concerned and thinks we need an investigation. As well, I feel much more confident giving out the Loose Change Final Cut as opposed to the previous versions. Great job Patriots.
I agree...
I think is the best one to give out as it sticks to the more solid evidence.
BTW, cool to here the effects on giving it to those 4 people!
==============================
"Short of intentional war, inflation is the most immoral act political leaders can commit." - Ron Paul
I'd suggest a few more
I'd suggest a few more chapters be added...
Silverstein
Willie Rodriquez
Sibel Edmonds
Squibs
Marvin Bush
WTC Power Downs
Fake UBL videos
Thermite
just a thought....
go back to 2nd edition for a
go back to 2nd edition for a lot of that
I agree with Sibel though.
/////////////////////
http://www.swatcash.com/dhs
Agreed. The information
Agreed. The information usafreedompatriot mentions is out there and researchable (some covered in prior versions of LC). In order for LCFC to go from 4.5 stars to 5, this info needs to be included. For me, the absence of squibs was a huge bummer. That is how I got into this research in the first place. So when I show somebody this for the first time, it doesn't have the impact. I think what you should have done was go the route of Kill Bill. One movie, 2 parts. Then it can be 4 hours and people would buy 2 tickets:) ...and they will buy 2 tickets cause once you are exposed to part 1, you can't get enough. Down the road, part 3, etc.
oops
double post
jeezus
i hit the back button again :)
Clarification, please?
I haven't seen the final cut, but I've ordered DVDs which haven't arrived yet. Without having seen the final cut, I'm curious to know if this material (referred to here as, "not in the movie") isn't treated in some other fashion that IS in the movie?
Surely this is a significant part of the story. Can someone tell me whether this information is totally absent from the final cut, or whether the information is presented differently? I can't imagine how the events of 9/11 contained in this clip can be missing altogether. I understand that this piece of footage isn't in the film, but are you saying that the information is absent? That doesn't make sense...
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
Simple. This chapter was
Simple. This chapter was replaced with 10 minutes of people saying what they thought hit the Pentagon.
Great movie, guys! Very
Great movie, guys! Very professional. It could be shown in any broadcast or local venue. In the end, it will be seen by as many or more people as saw any single theatrical release this year.
Is it possible to include this and some of the other footage that had to be jettisoned for length as "Special Features" or "Extras" in future runs of the dvd? Or to offer it as a supplemental download package? It would allow you to keep within a reasonable running length for theatrical opportunities while adding the extras that people have come to anticipate when a film comes out on dvd.
This Chapter IS an Extra on DVD
This deleted chapter DOES appear as an Extra in the DVD I ordered from Infowars. Don't know about DVD's from other sources. Good stuff hearing the NORAD people. War Games going on.... I guess the terrorists 'got lucky' by picking the day of the drills, and the NeoCons just got lucky by getting their New Pearl Harbor!
One note about the film. As I've said before I think it is very strong, but a few more close-ups would have been nice. For instance:
CLOSE-UP shots of squibs on Building 7.
CLOSE-UP footage of South Tower Demolition. (Check on that one)
CLOSE-UP shots of molten metal.
CLOSE-UP face shot of 'The Confessor' and Osama Bin Laden.
www.911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml
I think the loose change
I think the loose change guys have done good work by spreading the message, but I'm sorry to say LCFC was a big disappointment for me. Like others, I can't believe they didn't show the squibs. Another thing that bothers me is that it is exactly like David Ray Griffin's books. I've read all of DRGs books, and I respect him for all the work he's done, but the thing that annoys me is the fact that he never mentions the Israel connection. He repeatedly mentions the ISI wire transfer, but never says anything about the Mossad. What about the cheering/dancing white van guys. What about the "moving company" (Mossad front) that was in the WTC? And Larry Silverstein is so obviously a Sayan. Of course, if you mention this stuff, you are automatically an "anti-semite". And Feith, Perle, Wurmser, Abrams, .... need I go on? Who is pushing for the war against Iran? Who wrote the bill in Congress against Iran...umm Lieberman?
Most here
probably know the evidence for Mossad pro and con. The issue is, don't produce a movie you hope will have mass appeal and that you want to be relatively impervious to guilting by association. Present the strongest case, in an appealing and professional manner, give the critics the fewest possible handles. Those who are convinced of the government complicity will eventually begin to question and explore geopolitics .... and it is there that the multiplicity of issues becomes apparent.
Anything else is poor strategy, I would hazard.
==================================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)
Great Post, David
Sometimes I wonder if the whole pupose of Loose Change is to steer people away from the obvious Israeli connection. If that's their intent, they're being quite successful.
One issue not dealt with in LCFC is the phone calls made from the planes. The original Loose Change films put forth the notion that, since cell phone calls are impossible from airplanes at altitude, therefore all the phone calls from the planes were somehow faked. That assertion was ridiculous from the get-go since most of the calls were made on airphones. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the Truth Movement bought off on it and continue to believe to this very day that the calls are somehow faked.
In truth, the phone calls are very real and are solid proof that the planes were indeed hijacked by real people who were either: A) Arabs, or B) People disguised as Arabs playing the role of Islamic fanatics while hijacking the planes so as to frame Arabs for the crime of the century. The answer of course is B) and that further implicates the State of Israel, who has a long history, going back at least to the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, of dressing up their agents as Arabs then committing terrorist acts.
Dylan & the boys are apparently now aware that the no-cell-phone-calls argument is invalid, and that the calls could have been made by airphones. How can they simply ignore the whole issue on LCFC? It's as if they'd like to sweep the issue under the carpet.
(Read more about the bombing of the King David Hotel:
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm)
Asserting the calls were real doesn't make it true
I believe it is much more likely that the calls were fake. If you are familiar with the Fox News report on Israeli spying in the US before and after 9/11, you will be aware that the Mossad almost certainly had/has the ability the manipulate phone records, access circuits to fake calls, eavesdrop on calls, etc. In addition to the Israeli companies discussed in the report, I will add that the chances that Mossad has operatives working withing the US telecommunications industry are at least 100%. There is also reason to believe they had access to airline ticket information. So you have people with the ability to collect personal information about the people who will be on the flights, and then monitory their phone calls before they ever get on the planes to get voice samples. The technology exists to synthesize a person's voice based on samples.
Here's a transcript: http://www.prisonplanet.com/fox_news_series_on_israeli_spying_in_the_us....
I find the it far fetched to think that there were traditional hijackers physical on the planes when they were commandeered, AND, that the planes were under automated guidance at the time of impact. I take the latter as a given. My scenario is fairly simple. It was all done electronically by slipping modified FMC components onto the planes, and neutralizing the crews and passengers with nerve gas. They have a few cowards on the ground making some high-tech "prank" phone calls, and provide a list of alleged hijackers whom they know will not be immediately available to deny involvement. I'll explain that later.
Certainly there had to be a number of people in place at key points within the FAA, NORAD, Secret Service, CIA, FBI, MSM, etc., who were supporting the operation, but probably fewer than one might expect.
Asserting that MOSSAD did it doesn't make it true.
I'm familiar with the FOX report. I've posted it here before.
The voice morphing technology is Made in USA;
http://www.public-action.com/911/voice-simulation/index.html
"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.
But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
---------------------------
And the NSA has far more extensive reach into American telecommunications than any foreign entity could hope to have. That's by design.
Just throwing that out there for objectivity.
Reply to Reprehensor
I would reply that simply asserting that voice morphing technology exists does not mean the calls from the airplanes were voice-morphed. You, along with everyone else in the Truth Movement who follows this line, have not even begun to deal with the complications.
Please read my essay:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11860
Then listen to Betty Ong's phone call on this link:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm
After listening to this, Reprehensor, can you look me in the eye and tell me this was voice-morphed?
Actually, I don't "follow that line"
Was just pointing out a logical weak point in the above assertion. I too doubt that voice-morphing occurred on 9/11, and I have written to Dr. Griffin to express my concerns on that point.
Great voice morph point--also, Mossad needs attention!
.
it's a very strong argument made supported by the .mp3 link to Betty Ong's phone call. It's a great discussion. This is an area I've left unattended, but you've convinced me of the authenticity of Betty Ong's call.
"What we do know regarding Mossad is that five Israelis were arrested because someone reported that they had filmed the attacks and were celebrating. I suspect the images Bush saw of the first hit came from their cameras. We know two of the men had verified intelligence experience. Four of them appeared on Israeli TV where one of them said their "purpose was to document the event".
The Mossad should be looked at more, but as already pointed to above, the intelligence agencies are so intimately involved with these plausible deniability relationships. It's hard to say what can be determined or sorted out? It's a mind-blower if Bush did see the first airplane hit from a closed curcuit connection provided courtesy of the Mossad? It's plausible, however!
To be sure, Mossad deserves more attention!
..don't believe them!
There is a LOT of evidence pointing to Mossad
To start with, there is an arrangement between intelligence agencies in which agencies spy on the citizens of other "friendly countries" and share information. US and Israeli intelligence have always been in an overly promiscuous relationship. That goes back to the time of JJ Angleton. I wouldn't be too sure that NSA is that far ahead of what Israel has for the simple fact that Israel walks all over US national security.
As I've already indicated, there were certainly insiders playing roles in the attacks. What we do know regarding Mossad is that five Israelis were arrested because someone reported that they had filmed the attacks and were celebrating. I suspect the images Bush saw of the first hit came from their cameras. We know two of the men had verified intelligence experience. Four of them appeared on Israeli TV where one of them said their "purpose was to document the event".
There's other stuff pointing in that direction as well, but I'm not ready to risk posting it here.
Reply to N987SA
"I find the it far fetched to think that there were traditional hijackers physical on the planes when they were commandeered, AND, that the planes were under automated guidance at the time of impact. I take the latter as a given."
I also take it as a given that the planes were piloted by remote navigation to their targets. But why is it far-fetched for there to be human hijackers aboard as well? Why are human hijackers and remote navigation not compatible? There's no reason there couldn't have been both.
"My scenario is fairly simple. It was all done electronically by slipping modified FMC components onto the planes, and neutralizing the crews and passengers with nerve gas."
Your scenario is not simple at all. To immediately neutralize all passengers with gas is infinitely more complicated than a scenario using humans aboard. We have a great deal of credible evidence that phone calls were made from the planes, including numerous credible witness accounts from family members, as well as a lengthy recording of Betty Ong from FL11. You have no evidence whatsoever to support the use of nerve gas on the planes.
Finally, I agree with your last sentence. Each of those organizations you listed needed only to be infiltrated by a handful of moles in key positions.
Uh, let me see if I got this right
andrewkornkven writes that "the planes were indeed hijacked by real people who were either: A) Arabs, or B) People disguised as Arabs playing the role of Islamic fanatics while hijacking the planes so as to frame Arabs for the crime of the century. The answer of course is B) and that further implicates the State of Israel, who has a long history, going back at least to the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, of dressing up their agents as Arabs then committing terrorist acts."
If there were false flag hijackers, they also would've been suicide hijackers. Are you suggesting that Israeli agents were suicide hijackers? If so, were they willing or duped?
That all sounds pretty far-fetched to me. Mossad recruits suicide hijackers? Or tricks its agents into going on suicide missions?
No passenger airphones on Flight 77
Ian Henshall got confirmation from American Airlines that Flight 77 was not fitted with airphones. See "9/11: The New Evidence", p. 115:
"AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communications available."
(Tim Wagner, AA Spokesman)
Barbara Olsen was first reported to have used a cellphone, then an airphone, on that flight.
The fact that there may have
The fact that there may have been no airphones on AAL77 does not invalidate the evidence that there were phone calls made from the other flights, which did have airphones aboard. It is possible Ted Olson was lying about the alleged calls from his wife. His position and background as part of the Bush administration would make him a prime candidate to be a low-level stooge or patsy for the 9/11 conspirators. Perhaps he was convinced to tell this lie so as to discredit all the phone calls and thus divert attention from the damaging information relayed in some of the authentic calls, such as Tom Burnett's and Betty Ong's reports of guns in possession of the hijakcers.
The only other alleged call that came from AAL77 was from Renee May, using her cell phone. Such a cell phone call would have been possible since she made the call in the final minutes of the flight when the plane was at a low altitude and thus cell phone reception is possible.
Why not put it as an extra in the DVD?
Why is this piece left out? Time constraints??? At least we hope it will appear in the DVD, either put back in or as an Extra.
ALSO why is Loose Chnage not making any mention of the Dancing Israelis ? Ive seen the 2nd edition. They are not in it.
'The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11
As the world watched in disbelief and asked the question...
...Mossad operatives were seen dancing with joy.
A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.
The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards. (1)
Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)
"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)
Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)
etc
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Dual Layer
(Conjecture)
The DVD I purchased which I am now watching for the 5th time while I type this was stored on a DL DVD which holds 7.5 GB of data. It may be possible that they simply couldn't store any more data on the disc. I heard Dylan say they were going to release the stuff on the cutting room floor later as a seperate release.
I think this is a great film for people to see the lying liars and the lies that come out of their lying lips.
I don't disagree with anything said above. There is so much evidence for inside job.
Google Video - Top 100
Zeitgeist - Official Release is currently #2 on Google's Top 100 Video List. Check it out for yourself - http://video.google.com/videoranking?hl=en
I can't wait to see Loose Change - Final Cut up there with them or even at #1. I don't want to see this go down like JFK. I want the truth & I want it now.
Powerful segment
Hey Dylan & Co.
I was at the recent screening at the Colonial Theater in Keene NH and thought that LCFC makes a very strong case for a real investigation of the Bushco War Machine. Anyways, wow this section is very convincing - particularly the flight path over the nuclear generator - I had never heard of that. There is so much material regarding 9/11 now...it is impossible to include everything in a two hour movie, period. However this information, Operation Northwoods, and the highly visible squibs on all 3 WTC buildings. especially the towers, are worthy of a re-examination for inclusion in the Final Cut: First Blood Part II edition of the film.
Peace Out
Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
LCFC Excellent!!
I just got my copy yesterday i thought it was excellent. It concentrates on the strongest points
and doesn't speculate about details we are not sure of.
The footage of the Minetta testimony is damning.
and the question more and more are asking:-How did they identify the 19 so quickly after 9/11,
when they said they had no warnings?
Congrats Loose Change crew on an excellent job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past"
George Orwell 1984