Did they actualy land on moon ? or it was all a big fake made in one of their studios ?\nAlso I heard conspiracy theories that the collaps on the two twin towers at 9/11 was planned ahead ? That it was a demolition, and that the two towers could not in any circumstanced collapsed like that, just straight down and not on a side or the other. \nThat huge of a building could of not fallen down just from a plane been crashed into it. They said that the heat from the gas and explosion melted the support beams, and it all came down. There has been cases where big building like those have been burning for days and never fell down.\nAlso when Bush was told about the attack why wasn't he sourprized at all, and continued with his speech or whatever was he doing at that school.\n( I don't know if all this is true, that's just what i've heard)
138657
Check google video, 911 loose change 2nd edition and find a nice answers
476844
Ever seen video of 9/11? There's obviously bombs on each floor of the building and you can see them explode. A plane hitting a building that big will not knock it over. Even if the plane could knock over the building, the towers fell straight down and not to the side like they should've if the planes made them fall. It was obviously an inside job. They wanted to scapegoat someone to start a war. The United States government is making a fortune from the war. No doubt that in agreeing to be scapegoated, Bin Laden made a fortune and is probably making money off the production of weapons for the Islam side. However, most of the weapons used against the United States are bought from the United States. The US was so sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because the US sold them those weapons after the Vietnam war.  \nI think it is patriotic to ask questions of the government. However, every American has gun in case they need to have a revolution to overthrow the government. Why hasn't there been a mass uprising to overthrow the current government?
574869
No official report corroborates your claims.  You're really embarrassing yourself.  The use of profanity only shows you lack understanding, intelligence, and logic skills.  That is why you let a novice fiction filmmaker spoon-feed you information contradicting everything you saw on that day.  I am sorry for you.\n\nThe terrorists on flight 77 did not need to take off nor land the plane.  The take-off part had been done for them.  They never planned to land.  So what does it matter if they had trouble with landings?\n\nImpossible turns?  Could it be that the terrorists didn't know what they were doing?  I doubt they planned to make those insane maneuvers.  The first attempt at the pentagon was botched, so they had no choice.  They were planning to die anyway, why wouldn't they attempt an "impossible" maneuver?\n\nLight poles at the pentagon were knocked from their break-away bases (new safety design), unlike the poles the filmmaker references in another accident.  Oh, and ripped out of the ground is not damaged???  The poles did exactly what they were designed to do.\n\nhttp://911myths.com/\nhttp://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html\nhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html\nhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/\nhttp://wtc.nist.gov/\nhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html\n\nNow please shut up.
655495
It's questionable. It seems it was hit with some sort of missile. The story is supposedly that an airplane hit it, but the resulting hole is too small and there is no evidence of plane. The government says the explosion was so hot it burned the evidence, but how come the bodies and other things around weren't burned? It's one of the many questionable topics of 9/11 (like how the twin towers free-fell to the earth??) that are explored in the video below.
168333
no, the "TERRORISTS" didn't...the terrorists that flew the planes were found alive later and the government kept it quiet.  Look at the tower bombing video...see the explosions in the basement?  If those towers fell from the planes, they would have went sideways, not straight down.  The company that cleaned it up wouldn't be a presidential demolition crew that knocks down buildings for a living...they were waiting right next to the damn things waiting for them to fall to go to work
255723
Good grief -- I've only been visiting this site for a month, and this is about the fifteenth time someone has asked this same ludicrous question.\n\nYes, we landed on the moon. \nYes, we went back several times. \nYes, we left things on the moon that can still be seen today. \nYes, we left a flag on the moon -- but it wasn't flapping in the breeze in the famous photo: its momentum after being unfurled has kept it moving in the absence of anything to slow it down.\n\nYes, we brought back samples of dust and rocks that have been studied for nearly 40 years. And there's nothing like them anywhere on Earth.\n\nNo, we haven't gone back since the landings because there are no economically viable reasons to do so in this modern era of cost-effectiveness and the bottom line driving science. But just because we haven't been back doesn't mean we were never there in the first place.\n\nThe U.S. was in a major competition with the Soviets to prove our scientific superiority. If we'd never landed on the moon, and it was all a sham, do you think the thousands of NASA employees would be able to keep the secret? Do you think every other nation in the world would remain complicit in the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated"?\n\nIsn't there a FAQ on Yahoo Answers that could put this baby to rest??  I can't believe that people still think this was some kind of hoax!
550140
First off... if they really did land on the moon... how in the world and why in the world would they lose the original footage of the moon landing. Wouldn't that footage have been a coveted prize from our early space exploration???  Of course it would have... NASA losing that footage so that it can no longer be tested or viewed should be a big hint for those who still believe the moon landing to be true.  The footage of Neil Armstrong's historic moment is one of the most important artifacts of the 20th century.  Therefore, who would benefit from losing the footage???  and more importantly, what would they gain??? \n\nSecond, consider the fact that they could not land back onto Earth after they returned from the lunar mission... however, they expect us to believe that they could land on the moon and then take back off from the moon... BUT... they would then have to land in the ocean when they returned. If we didn't have the technology to LAND back on Earth... how in world could we have done everything else that they stated they did. Sadly, our technology was definitely in its infancy stage in 1969 and hasn't even progressed enough at this time to undertake a lunar mission.  Notice how NASA is hoping for a lunar mission by 2018... why the long wait?  I personally think that they are being forced to wait since "the average Joe" now has the technology and capabilities to view and evaluate the whole mission from start to finish... and therefore, they can't fake anything.
201208
They are nutters 9/11 did happen. Im just uncertain about some of the fact surrounding the Pentagon (no one seen a plane, no one heard one, no debris, was it a bomb or just a poor excuse for the  the U.S. Government to not shoot the planes down that crashed into the towers? After all they did know the planes where hijacked shortly after take off, and U.S. security is the best in the world... so what happened? Confused consiracy but every thing was so well orcastrated! Thats my opinion. Love Heidi
318115
well i can tell u that the way the wtc was build was that every floor would stay up if anything were to happen to anything else.  and also, after the 1993 bombing with the truck, every floor got fixed so that if there was a fire on one floor, it would not escalate to many other floors.  i know about architecture, and the wtc was one of the strongest build buildings in nyc, if not all the world.  for a plane to hit it and all of it just collapse is impossible.  you can find out info and watch a video by watching Loose Change.  You can google or yahoo search it.  its free to watch and it gives you insight on things the government is hiding from us.  oh yea, in short, the reason the buildings fell so fast was that there were bombs planted on many floors in the buildings, trust me, I was there when it happened.
443918
Trust me they did, but let me give you some hoax's and then the explanation for them hey. I have picked 4 big ones that are fairly typical. Its a bit long, but please stick with me :)\n\n1) No stars in the photos:\n\nThe real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. \n\nYou cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.\n\n2) The flags waving.\n\nThe flag is out and appears to be waving by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.\n\nIt has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil.\n\n3) 'Wrong' shadows\n\nThe simple fact is that there is more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire daytime surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. \n\nThe reflections from these objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth. \n\nFor more on this question check out badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01\n\nAll the other fake photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface. \n\nWe see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well. \n\nIt's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs.\n\n4) Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof hey\nThe equipment left over by the astronauts is just too small to be seen with the HST. Even the best image we have of the moon is taken of Copernicus crate
561444
Based on the information out there, I now believe that they never went  to the moon. There is no wind on the moon, yet the flag blows in the background. The angles of lighting do not match the way they are supposed to, unless lighting was set up...and an extensive amount. The temperatre that the films would have been subjected to, would have destroyed the pictures. And for the picture of the footprint on the moon, there would have had to have been moisture to create such a mark. If you take completey dry sand and try to make a castle out of it, what happens? It crumbles...any child who has been to the beach knows that you need a little water. so, anyone can believe what they want, but im going on facts :)\n\nps...dont mind my spelling
574283
How about the great moon hoax? United States of America faked all the landings on the moon in the late 60's and early 70's to scare the Russians from messing with us. \n\nOr the one where the US government has crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and faked a crash landing in PA?
208159
ok i've watched loose change four times or so now, and spent way too much time reading on various websites, they make some convincing points...but then they ignore alot of stuff as well...like common sense.\n\ncould there be some conspiracy behind 911? yes there could be. is it these theories that are popularly being advanced currently on the web...no\n\nstart at the end and work your way forward: the point of 911 was to destroy some buildings.  there are easier ways for the government to pull this off than to.\nsecretly swap planes in the air for non-passenger drone places, fly two of them into buildings, which they already rigged with additional explosives, secretly land the planes, secretly kill the passengers, fake a plane crash at one location, get voice samples from passengers to load into a computer to produce fake phone calls to loved ones with, then swap one plane for a missle (never mind that some claim this was a smaller drone plane) fire it into the pentagon, get 100 or so people to claim they saw a plane(this is ignored by loose change which uses two of the four people that claimed to not have seen a plane) then run around real fast knocking over the light poles etc...loose change claims a plane couldn't knock over those lamp poles that way, but never tries to explain how they were knocked over, if we assume that not all 100+ witnesses were cia plants, then we have to wonder why no one went, "and there these guys ran around loosening all the bolts on those lamps and pushed them over and ran off! dam kids!"\n\nloose change and other sources also use alot of broadcasts from very early after the attacks took place during which there was alot of confusion about what happened, live news especially while something is happening doesn't always get things 100% correct and uses alot of speculation to fill in time while they figure things out.\n\nloud thuds of things like, say upper floors falling into lower ones, could no doubt sound very much like other explosions going off.\n\nthe list goes on and on, but this post is getting rather long.\n\nok so lets face it, thats one complicated plan to bring down some buildings.  you could just blow them up, blame who ever you wanted to, say you are investigating how security could have been breached to such an extent, and leave it at that.\n\nits just too complicated of a conspiracy, that would take way way too many people to keep their mouths shut.
187575
NO!!!!  Go to www.popularmechanics.com and find the article about debunking the 9/11 myths.  And please, please, use your common sense!  Why in the WORLD would the government do something like that?  And HOW?!  It would take YEARS to come up with such an idea, and longer to go through with it.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Quit watching Loose Change!
669590
I think it very convincing. I remember wondering why there was no exterior plane wreckage the day it happened. If it was a missile or a military plane the government would want to hush it up as it would be difficult to pin that on Islamic nationalists unless they had help. It is a bit like the anthrax attacks. One of the 9-11skyjackers was treated for an anthrax skin lesion, an extremely rare condition before 9-11. There was also a very direct link between one of the skyjackers and the first anthrax victim. His former landlord worked in the same building. Yet the government avoided investigating any links and tried to find a scapegoat.
610137
It wasn't faked. I agree, the technology involved was bare bones but still capable. Here are some quotes that help counter some of the conspiracy theories:\n\nIn some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.\n\n        * In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair) makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. Ironically, this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more difficult.\n\nThe quality of the photographs is implausibly high.\n\n        * The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and poses were planned in advance as part of the mission. NASA selected only the best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.\n\nThere are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report seeing any stars from the capsule windows. \n\n         *Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film.\n\nhe color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.\n\n        * Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself. \n\n The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.\n\n        * There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. \n\nThe launch rocket produced no visible flame.\n\n        * Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust. Hypergolic fuels are also used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March, and the transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos.\n\nThe flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.\n\n        * The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph.\n\nThese are only a few quotes. They all seem much more convincing then the arguments the conspiracy theorists present.
282408
they waited five years because it really isn't a plane...it is actually a UFO full of aliens, and the landed here illegaly.\n\nThey had to wait untill the immigration debate became the hot topic.\n\nAnd also, it wasn't two planes that crashed into the twin towers, it was a missle.\n\n3000 plus people didn't die on 9/11...there hanging out in cryogenic suspension in area 51.\n\n\ncome on get over it....people hate us because of our values and our freedoms...they want us dead.\n\nBush didn't do it to improve his stadings and validate his presidency