911 The Cover Up: Loose Change


The official version of the dreadful attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 is that terrorists hijacked commercial airliners using packing knives as weapons, took over the pilots position, and with minimal training, flew these complex machines into the towers. The heat of the fires caused the metal framework of the towers to melt and thus they collapsed.

At about the same time another commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon and yet another crashed into a field after the passengers bravely tackled the hijackers.
Pretty horrendous.

What’s more horrendous though is the theory that actually this was state-sponsored terrorism, and the sponsoring state is the USA.

Is this possible? It’s barely imaginable, but is it possible?

Loose Change have produced 911 The Cover Up, a compelling and powerful documentary that weaves together a theory that stitches up a number of loose ends that the official version apparently has. For example, the heat of burning jet fuel isn’t enough to melt the sort of steel used in the construction of the twin towers - and their film highlights a number of smaller explosions as the towers fall - exactly like that of those used in demolition. Nine of the supposed terrorists are still alive and well, having been interviewed by the Daily Telegraph and no wreckage of planes were found at the field crash or the Pentagon crash.

Again, the official theory is that the heat of the crash vapourised the planes - but this doesn’t happen. As the documentary reveals, the heat of the burning fuel just isn’t high enough, and the flames don’t burn for long enough, to significantly damage the titanium alloys used in the 6 ton Roll Royce engines. The hole in the building wasn’t large enough to have been made by something the size of the passenger jet - and it penetrated far deeper that something travelling at the speed of such a jet would have been travelling. The only wreckage of significance found relating to an engine is way too small for a passenger jet, but does fit, so the documentary says, a cruise missile.

If you think this is mad, there is documented evidence that phoney terrorism was planned, or at least mooted, in the 60’s to discredit Castro and justify an invasion - where have we heard a similar story more recently?

This is a deeply disturbing film, irrespective of whether it is correct in its assertions, and is a testament to the power of internet video. At the time of writing this blog, 911 The Cover Up has had 4,562,642 views on Google video and has been discussed by senior politicians, one UK one even considered showing it to the House of Commons. Whilst such a film could have been made without the internet, I’m sure the internet helped with research, but more than that is the viewing figures. It would be a brave TV channel indeed to air this documentary, but the democratisation of the internet, and its increasing ability to handle video, allows dissenting voice to be heard, and the the principle of freedom of expression to be upheld in way way that could not have been done 10 years ago.

And what if Loose Change are correct? What if Bush’s presidency did plan everything? Would this be the end of democracy? Would martial law be declared? Would the population rise up in revolt and revulsion over what would have been done in their name? Would the producers of this movie be hailed as heroes for exposing what wold be a monstrous crime, or would they be damned for shattering the myth of western values?

Having watched 911 The Cover Up a week ago, I’m still appalled by its central theme - I hope, really hope, that despite it being a shining example of the power of internet video, and that it’s very well produced and strongly argued, that the arguments are built on sand and won’t stand up to scrutiny.

The troubling thing is that right now it’s the official version that doesn’t appear to be standing up to scrutiny.

Yours of a disquieted mind.