PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

bob_kark
4th May 2006, 12:26 PM
i can probably do a film from gravys debunking i'm a filmmaker, and gravy does live in brooklyn and so do i.....hmm.....

I think that's an excellent idea, maybe we should start up a fund.

dissonance
4th May 2006, 12:26 PM
So, can anyone explain why the Loose Change people seem to think that getting other forums shut down (like the forum on the Flight 93 movie website) is a victory for them? Huh?

Doesn't that just make them really obnoxious trolls?

I mean, this is hilarious:

That great news and it's proof we in the Movement can challenge the lies of 9/11 and clearly win. Universal Pictures is a billion dollar corporation with a massive legal team and probably many high placed political friends. A few dedicated people presented the facts and the truth in the face of a giant corporation that is presently pushing the government's blatant lies on thousands of movie screens across this country and "WON." Universal's decision to close down their Flight 93 Forum, just wasn't made without serious consideration, you can bet Universal's executives and lawyers weighed their decision very carefully. They probably considered many questions, "What message will this send to the American movie-going public, if we take down this Forum?" Could this forum be more determential to the movie if we do nothing?" You get the idea, the many possible questions they must have discussed before "pulling the forum."

Or, you know, some underpaid webmonkey thought the forum had become too much of a headache.

Hellbound
4th May 2006, 12:27 PM
Good afternoon geggy.
So which one, or combination of these various CTs are you now in favor of believing?
1. Suitcase Nuke planted to demolish the building because the high cost of asbestos removal?
2. Explosive charges built into the WTC from the begining to be detonated at some future time?
3. People secretly smuggling enough explosives into the WTC without being noticed?
Keeping in mind that any of these needed to be timed perfectly with someone elses attempt at taking down to WTC with planes.
And somehow these CTs seem more plausible to you then the official report? You do realize that the official report will have some gaps and some missing info simply because the people writing the report might not have been the ones who organized the attacks in the first place?
JPK
All of them!!!

I'm telling you, man, I've got it figured out. THere were four groups involved:

Group 1: Osama and the gang. They wanted to highjack planes and demand concessions from the US. They were successful at the highjackings. One plane (Flight 77) actually landed in secret, and the terrorists let everyone out for a bathroom break. They were all found and assasinated by Group 2, to maintain Group 2's cover story.

Group 2: Dubya and his Evil Minions. They wanted a symbol so they could get the populace to back the war. They implanted remote control devices into several civillian airliners, with planes to "take them over" in flight and ram them into buildings. Luckily for the Evil Master, Dubya, the flights were actually highjacked, adding credibility to their cover story.

Group 3: Silverstein. See, he wired the WTC buildings with explosives when they were built (he has a time travel device, you know, so he could see the future costs of asbestos removal, and used his time travel device to go back in time and modify the original plans). So he had all these explosives ready to blow. When the planes impacted, he took advantage of the situation to set them off.

Group 4: The Shadowy Unknown Overlords. For reasons of thier own, entirely inscrutible to us common folk, they planted a briefcase nuke in the WTC. The nuke went off when the towers fell on it, and the resultant EMP burst took out Flight 93, causing it to crash. Realizing that their plans went unnoticed because of all the other activity, they decided to launch a missile at the Pentagon, just so they could get something out of it all. THey also stole half of everyone's socks.

See? It makes perfect sense!

[/geggy]

dubfan
4th May 2006, 12:28 PM
I think that's an excellent idea, maybe we should start up a fund.

Count me in. I'll contribute time, money, computing resources, writing, editing, proofing, research, fact-checking. Whatever and whenever.

Manny
4th May 2006, 12:29 PM
i can probably do a film from gravys debunking i'm a filmmaker, and gravy does live in brooklyn and so do i.....hmm.....I could help assembling the evidence -- in particular the pictures/video needed to make one of those talkie things. Lemme spend some more time with Gravy's sources and stuff. Bet we could bang out at least the storyboards in a weekend.

We'd want someone with a less goofy voice than Dylan.

brodski
4th May 2006, 12:29 PM
I think that's an excellent idea, maybe we should start up a fund.
seeing as Avery and Co. have given renounced claim to copyright of LC2E, it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a new soundtrack to the film, perhaps giving it the full MST3K treatment? Less work than making a whole new film, and many of Gravy's comments fit the style (eg "wake me when they mention something relevant to 9/11") :D

chipmunk stew
4th May 2006, 12:29 PM
i can probably do a film from gravys debunking i'm a filmmaker, and gravy does live in brooklyn and so do i.....hmm.....There was someone on the United 93 forum before it went AWOL who was talking about making a film, and I suggested he float the idea over here.

If you're reading this, United 93 guy, these are the guys to hook up with.


edit: Wait a minute! Was that you, dubfan?

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 12:30 PM
Of course when you include everyone in the conspiracy, somehow you will hit the mark. Notice how the CT never clearly excludes the Al Qaeda component in the conspiracy.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 12:31 PM
Bet we could bang out at least the storyboards in a weekend.

I'll take care of the storyboards, I'm an illustrator...;)

Manny
4th May 2006, 12:33 PM
seeing as Avery and Co. have given renounced claim to copyright of LC2E, it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a new soundtrack to the film, perhaps giving it the full MST3K treatment? Less work than making a whole new film, and many of Gravy's comments fit the style (eg "wake me when they mention something relevant to 9/11") :DThat's actually half the idea I had. For the sarcastic stuff, an MST3K approach. For the serious stuff (science, things involving the victims), "Let's go to Evidence Man (or lady)." Business-looking, well groomed, serious, respectful. But still not unwilling to call the Loosers what they are. I'd suggest running a sarcasm comb over the thing to make sure beyond sure that we're sensitive to the victims.

dubfan
4th May 2006, 12:34 PM
edit: Wait a minute! Was that you, dubfan?

Sadly no. I was late to that party. By the time I heard about the forum wars over here Universal had shut it down.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 12:35 PM
We'd want someone with a less goofy voice than Dylan.

Let's call Chuck Norris to do the voice-over!:cool:

Ramooone
4th May 2006, 12:36 PM
seeing as Avery and Co. have given renounced claim to copyright of LC2E, it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a new soundtrack to the film, perhaps giving it the full MST3K treatment? Less work than making a whole new film, and many of Gravy's comments fit the style (eg "wake me when they mention something relevant to 9/11") :D

we could do it that way, but i'd rather go an do an actual documentary. with interviews such as chertoff at popular mechanics, louseux(sp?) the demolitions guy who's misquoted, family members of the flights if posssible, actual structural engineers. i'd do it right. i have the camera's and editing equipment i'd need so thats not a problem. i have connections to lots of people who could do a good voice over, and i have a TON of radio connections because my roommate is the producer of one of the largest talk shows thats on both fm and xm radio. if anyone has any idea's for this email me at Bryan@organgrindermedia.com

dubfan
4th May 2006, 12:39 PM
Let's call Chuck Norris to do the voice-over!:cool:

Random thought: I would be willing to bet my mortgage that we could get Bruce Willis to contribute his voice-over, if he was approached respectfully and seriously. Especially if he (or his agent) was approached by an advocate for the project with ties to the armed forces, and we (collectively) had our isht together.

bob_kark
4th May 2006, 12:40 PM
I love it when a plan comes together.

pgwenthold
4th May 2006, 12:41 PM
I looked through Dr Adequate's link to controlled demolitions. The two examples of things destroyed by hitting the top were long structures (including the baseball stadium) where the goal is to get the top to drag down the next section.

All of the tall, narrow structures are destroyed by blowing out the bottom, EXCEPT for the Southward Towers, where the entire length of the structure lets out at once.

Not a single one look anything like the falling of the WTC, where the bottoms are intact until they are taken out by the material above them.

The more I look, the bigger the folly becomes. The falling of the WTC doesn't look _anything_ like a controlled demolition in any way.

brodski
4th May 2006, 12:41 PM
we could do it that way, but i'd rather go an do an actual documentary. with interviews such as chertoff at popular mechanics, louseux(sp?) the demolitions guy who's misquoted, family members of the flights if posssible, actual structural engineers. i'd do it right. i have the camera's and editing equipment i'd need so thats not a problem. i have connections to lots of people who could do a good voice over, and i have a TON of radio connections because my roommate is the producer of one of the largest talk shows thats on both fm and xm radio. if anyone has any idea's for this email me at Bryan@organgrindermedia.com
Cool, I didn't realize that you had so many good resources at your disposal.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 12:46 PM
Random thought: I would be willing to bet my mortgage that we could get Bruce Willis to contribute his voice-over, if he was approached respectfully and seriously. Especially if he (or his agent) was approached by an advocate for the project with ties to the armed forces, and we (collectively) had our isht together.

If someone can get FACTS straight, Chuck Norris is the guy...

dubfan
4th May 2006, 12:49 PM
we could do it that way, but i'd rather go an do an actual documentary. with interviews such as chertoff at popular mechanics, louseux(sp?) the demolitions guy who's misquoted, family members of the flights if posssible, actual structural engineers. i'd do it right. i have the camera's and editing equipment i'd need so thats not a problem. i have connections to lots of people who could do a good voice over, and i have a TON of radio connections because my roommate is the producer of one of the largest talk shows thats on both fm and xm radio. if anyone has any idea's for this email me at Bryan@organgrindermedia.com

Yes, I think that's the right approach. It needs to be as serious as a heart attack.

dubfan
4th May 2006, 12:51 PM
If someone can get FACTS straight, Chuck Norris is the guy...

Hey, if you think he'd be game... I only mention Bruce because he's been pretty charitable with his time and talents on the USO circuit. Not that Chuck hasn't, I just think Bruce has had a little higher profile on it.

However -- I'm pretty sure Bruce is politically conservative (or at least is in favor of the Iraq war), so that may be off-putting to folks here, or may hurt the credibility of the debunking effort. I don't know.

60hzxtl
4th May 2006, 12:52 PM
Guys, all you have to do is take Loose Change and narrate over it. It is mostly news footage, and paid for as stock footage.

Pay the same sources, and put your own narration over his tripe "the sign of hiiiiighhhh expooooosives!

When he hits the "misssssilllleee in the pentagon" bilge water, just keep repeating, But nobody saw a missile.

Is so simple, it costs no more than time and stock footage. It should put a crimp in 'ol Dylan's career.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 12:56 PM
Hey, if you think he'd be game... I only mention Bruce because he's been pretty charitable with his time and talents on the USO circuit. Not that Chuck hasn't, I just think Bruce has had a little higher profile on it.

However -- I'm pretty sure Bruce is politically conservative (or at least is in favor of the Iraq war), so that may be off-putting to folks here, or may hurt the credibility of the debunking effort. I don't know.

I was only kidding :D

http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/

dubfan
4th May 2006, 12:59 PM
I was only kidding :D

*had to remove URL until post count == 15*

But it's not a bad idea for EXACTLY that reason.

Who's gonna argue with Chuck Norris?

WildCat
4th May 2006, 01:02 PM
we could do it that way, but i'd rather go an do an actual documentary. with interviews such as chertoff at popular mechanics, louseux(sp?) the demolitions guy who's misquoted, family members of the flights if posssible, actual structural engineers. i'd do it right. i have the camera's and editing equipment i'd need so thats not a problem. i have connections to lots of people who could do a good voice over, and i have a TON of radio connections because my roommate is the producer of one of the largest talk shows thats on both fm and xm radio. if anyone has any idea's for this email me at Bryan@organgrindermedia.com
Right on Ramoooooone!!

This forum kicks ass!

Ramooone
4th May 2006, 01:09 PM
i forgot. i also have a friend whos a composer and can write a good soundtrack for the movie. im going to do some research. if anyone has any ideas dont hesistate to send me a PM or an e-mail bryan@organgrindermedia.com

dubfan
4th May 2006, 01:22 PM
Thinking about this some...

There is probably some benefit in taking the best of both worlds here -- and maybe approaching the project in 2 parts. A "first edition" (ha) that could be produced relatively quickly, that simply refutes the errors/illogic/omissions in LC. Think Gravy's commentary overlaid on the LC video, minus the sarcasm.

And then a "second edition" along the lines of what Ramoone is proposing -- something that's more in depth and actually has some on-screen time with real experts and gets into some depth on scrutinizing the 5 or 6 major fallacies that LC proposes.

I only say this because if you go for the 2nd edition approach only -- that could take an awfully long time. Setting up interviews, etc. can really be a time-sink.

60hzxtl
4th May 2006, 01:29 PM
. A "first edition" (ha) that could be produced relatively quickly, that simply refutes the errors/illogic/omissions in LC. Think Gravy's commentary overlaid on the LC video, minus the sarcasm.

.


Nothing to it - just put the science over LC's tripe - anyone can narrate it - even Randi - They provide the pictures, you provide the explanation, back up with facts. They are selling smoke at LC.

WildCat
4th May 2006, 01:33 PM
Nothing to it - just put the science over LC's tripe - anyone can narrate it - even Randi - They provide the pictures, you provide the explanation, back up with facts. They are selling smoke at LC.
Randi's recovering from heart surgery now, don't think he is available.

geggy
4th May 2006, 01:40 PM
Heh this should be good. By the way GRAVY, YOU STILL OWE ME OSAMA TAPE...

Good afternoon geggy.
So which one, or combination of these various CTs are you now in favor of believing?
1. Suitcase Nuke planted to demolish the building because the high cost of asbestos removal?
2. Explosive charges built into the WTC from the begining to be detonated at some future time?
3. People secretly smuggling enough explosives into the WTC without being noticed?
Keeping in mind that any of these needed to be timed perfectly with someone elses attempt at taking down to WTC with planes.
And somehow these CTs seem more plausible to you then the official report? You do realize that the official report will have some gaps and some missing info simply because the people writing the report might not have been the ones who organized the attacks in the first place?
JPK

Heyya

Yeah i admit I made mistakes when I thought nookular was planted in the basement of the building. But there were several witnesses such as janitor of WTC WIlliam Rodriquez who were on the first floor to help lead the people their way out of the door and then felt an explosion. He told the sept white house that he was willing to testify in front of the commisson, that he heard an explosion coming from the basement. But he was rejected just as many other witnesses who volunteered to testify to the commission.

Some points made in the FEMA report and NIST are very deceptive and misleading, they had omitted so many facts. I'm going to point out one of them here...this is from the FEMA on the WTC7 report...

"The presence of fire and smoke on lower floors is also confirmed by the early television news coverage of WTC 7, which indicated light-colored smoke rising from the lower floors of WTC 7.

Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.

News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating."

Here is the image...
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5_files/fig-5-18.jpg

COMPARE that it showed you were looking at a different angle in the FEMA report, very deceptive indeedy...
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5_files/location.jpg

FEMA WTC report (click on chapter 5)... http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

WTC7.net analysis...
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Regnad Kcin
4th May 2006, 01:48 PM
More links from our little friend. Yet no evidence. How refreshingly consistent!

geggy
4th May 2006, 01:50 PM
You're doing a heckuva job debunking, kcin...!

60hzxtl
4th May 2006, 01:51 PM
. But there were several witnesses such as janitor of WTC WIlliam Rodriquez who were on the first floor to help lead the people their way out of the door and then felt an explosion. He told the sept white house that he was willing to testify in front of the commisson, that he heard an explosion coming from the basement.


Um yeah - imagine that, an explosion! In a building on fire! That never happened before!

Stuff falling down the elevator shafts, (the ones that Dylan says are "airtight" har har har! Like a pneumatic tube sonny? ) sounded like explosions. PEOPLE jumping to their deaths, the sound of them hitting was described to be like "an explosion" never mind that everything from the water cooler, to your computer terminal will explode in a fire. I'm SURE that those "explosions" were the pre planted bombs that nobody saw. Those hijackers just have a bad rep! They were such sweeties!

WildCat
4th May 2006, 01:54 PM
And of course, like all other controlled demolitions, the explosions go off starting an hour before the actual demolition.

JPK
4th May 2006, 02:10 PM
Heh this should be good. By the way GRAVY, YOU STILL OWE ME OSAMA TAPE...



Heyya

Yeah i admit I made mistakes when I thought nookular was planted in the basement of the building.
OK, so we are past the Nuke thing and are moving on.
1. Building was rigged from the begining to explode at a future date
2. Massive amounts of explosives were smuggled in secretly at some point to be detonated at some future time.
Either case still requires it to be timed to blow after some planes happen to smash into them.
And these explainations still sound more plausible to you then the official report?
JPK
E.T.A By the way, what was it that changed your mind about the Nuke theory?

WildCat
4th May 2006, 02:19 PM
Apparently, there is a rift developing in the lunatic conspiracy theory community. In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3422) Dylan Avery says "I blew up on the North Cali alliance (http://sf911truth.org/) and I shouldn't have, I should have merely laughed at their arrogance and walked away, but I don't like people trashing me in my own element."

I wonder what the issue was? :confused:

Dr Adequate
4th May 2006, 02:20 PM
1. Building was rigged from the begining to explode at a future date This would have been set off by any fire that broke out in the WTC.

2. Massive amounts of explosives were smuggled in secretly at some point to be detonated at some future time. If geggy wants to know, and I assume he doesn't, here's some information from howstuffworks.com about how to do a controlled demolition:

"In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack.

Once they have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the building. The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks ... Columns are fully loaded with explosives and hooked up to blasting caps and fuses.

To make sure they don't overload or under-load the support structure, the blasters perform a test blast on a few of the columns, which they wrap in a shield for safety. The blasters try out varying degrees of explosive material, and based on the effectiveness of each explosion, they determine the minimum explosive charge needed to demolish the columns."

Either case still requires it to be timed to blow after some planes happen to smash into them. As I pointed out, it's worse than that --- you need explosives which don't explode even though the building's on fire because some planes happen to smash into it.

CurtC
4th May 2006, 02:21 PM
If someone can get FACTS straight, Chuck Norris is the guy...Earlier in this thread, somone noted how the CT people kept coming in here one at a time, getting their ass kicked, then another would come in and do the same, and I noted that I felt like Chuck Norris. The similarity is there!

WildCat
4th May 2006, 02:30 PM
Earlier in this thread, somone noted how the CT people kept coming in here one at a time, getting their ass kicked, then another would come in and do the same, and I noted that I felt like Chuck Norris. The similarity is there!
There is no chin under Chuck Norris's beard. There is only another fist.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 02:37 PM
Earlier in this thread, somone noted how the CT people kept coming in here one at a time, getting their ass kicked, then another would come in and do the same, and I noted that I felt like Chuck Norris. The similarity is there!

Correction:"getting their ass roundhouse kicked";)

Manny
4th May 2006, 02:53 PM
Nothing to it - just put the science over LC's tripe - anyone can narrate it - even Randi - They provide the pictures, you provide the explanation, back up with facts. They are selling smoke at LC.One thing I'd like any video to be is much, much shorter than LC. That shouldn't be very difficult; in addition to being full of crap it's full of fluff and is very poorly made. I'd guess that a rebuttal of all the facts in LC should take about 20 minutes, 40 if you want to include background on some of the crackpots and stuff.

aggle-rithm
4th May 2006, 02:57 PM
Heh this should be good.

Settle down, Beavis!

Gravy
4th May 2006, 04:32 PM
Hurtman...
That makes no sense....if what you've claimed was true, then the puff o' dust would have blasted out of more than just one window.

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/B24.jpg

Either it was a very successful terrorist attack or it was a sloppy one..

geggy, you obviously didn't read my post in response to your squib. You're making more of a fool of yolurself each time you post. As I suggested before, watch the video and learn.

Also, you're supposed to use the "Image Host" feature of this forum, rather than hotlinking.
Do you see any differences between the last demo image you posted and the WTC?

Gravy
4th May 2006, 04:34 PM
A person using the name Nefastus on IMDB.com wrote this in the United 93 forum. I thought it was interesting.

I've corrected some of the spelling.
I would have posted this earlier, but I was waiting for the authors permission

Interesting post. I don't know how it's possible for JP4 to "freeburn" at 9752°F though.

Gravy
4th May 2006, 04:40 PM
since the loosers like to compare things that have nothing in common, like a warehouse fire and how the WTC collapsed. i figured i can do the same thing.

they say its impossible for a plane to penetrate all those walls at the pentagon.
yet i have found evidence that a 2x4 can go clean through a pall tree during a hurricane. so, if i use loosers logic, i can say that it is possible for a plane to penetrate through all those walls. heres the evidence for it. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-006/images/palm.jpg

coincidently, that part of the tree was just reinforced in case of such an attack by hurricanes.
People forget that the bottom floor of the Pentagon is an Open floor Plan." The light wells that make up the "rings" don't start until the 2nd floor. There were no major walls between where flight 77 struck and the hole made by some parts in C ring.

Gravy
4th May 2006, 04:48 PM
I think that's an excellent idea, maybe we should start up a fund.
I'm in if we can blow stuff up.

I've been saying this for a few days, but the new version of my critique will be out today. It's much, much more effective. Lots of new stuff, most sarcasm removed, easy to read, new photos. geggy is my ghostwriter.

Gravy
4th May 2006, 05:03 PM
[QUOTE=geggy;1618363]Heh this should be good. By the way GRAVY, YOU STILL OWE ME OSAMA TAPE...
geggy, I don't owe you anything. How many times have I told you to stop asking people to do your homework for you? You accused me of doctoring a photo. Then you asked me for a video clip. If you want a bin Laden video that you can be sure I haven't altered, you shouldn't be asking ME for it, capisce? If you don't trust me, you shouldn't trust my sources. It takes 5 minutes. Find your own.

Do your homework. You made ten claims in A SINGLE PARAGRAPH yesterday and didn't back a single one up with evidence.

My suggestion? Start from your post #1, read the responses, don't rely on others to do your homework, and start learning something. ANYTHING.

Gravy
4th May 2006, 05:11 PM
But there were several witnesses such as janitor of WTC WIlliam Rodriquez who were on the first floor to help lead the people their way out of the door and then felt an explosion. He told the sept white house that he was willing to testify in front of the commisson, that he heard an explosion coming from the basement. But he was rejected just as many other witnesses who volunteered to testify to the commission.

Here's what Rodriguez, who has been "on tour" with Jimmy Walter, initially said:
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
AN HOUR LATER, THE BUILDING COLLAPSED FROM THE TOP.
And that backs up your controlled demolition theory how?

Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.

News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating."
I have no idea of what you're saying is deceptive. What are you saying?


edited to fix quote

Gravy
4th May 2006, 05:16 PM
Apparently, there is a rift developing in the lunatic conspiracy theory community. In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3422) Dylan Avery says "I blew up on the North Cali alliance (http://sf911truth.org/) and I shouldn't have, I should have merely laughed at their arrogance and walked away, but I don't like people trashing me in my own element."

I wonder what the issue was? :confused:
I wonder what his "element" is?

Ramooone
4th May 2006, 05:22 PM
Interesting post. I don't know how it's possible for JP4 to "freeburn" at 9752°F though.

where can you find the temperatures for which these fuels burn?

Gravy
4th May 2006, 05:26 PM
This would have been set off by any fire that broke out in the WTC.
Here's a bit from Controlled Demolition Inc. about how they prepared for a world-record demolition...of a building that's more than three times shorter than the Twin Towers. Of course, this is if you care about collateral damage.

Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns
weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

hellaeon
4th May 2006, 05:48 PM
Look again, Belz..., that orange-brown stuff around the base of the building is exactly the same color as the globs of fallout that my workers have to clean up when a nuclear power plant melts down in "Civ III".

hahahahahahaha ahh man...nice.....

hellaeon
4th May 2006, 05:52 PM
Right now, it's my first read of the day. I think it's been averaging at least 2 collapses into hysterics per page, so far. I haven't actually read *all* of the thread, though. I'm saving pages 20-50. Kind of like a little rainy day fund. Or mad money. Ya know, stuff like that.

I just hope someone can find the time and resources to produce a film from Gravy's excellent and very thorough debunking. Normally I can't be bothered to give a CT the time of day, but the fact that this piece of crap is getting airtime thru major media outlets and watching Dylan Avery's head blow up to the size of an exploding 757 as he profits from the dead... Something needs to be done.

the ultimate would be a 2 hour debunk with Penn and Teller doing the work on it.

Loose count the number of times Penn would say "...and then theres this @sshole..."

hellaeon
4th May 2006, 05:56 PM
double post

dubfan
4th May 2006, 06:12 PM
where can you find the temperatures for which these fuels burn?

Good question. First instinct was to check the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. No luck. Google searches for "jp4 physical properties", and "how hot is a jet fuel fire" don't turn up much that's helpful, or authoritative.

I've seen that 9752°F figure before, though. Just can't remember where.

Ramooone
4th May 2006, 06:30 PM
Good question. First instinct was to check the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. No luck. Google searches for "jp4 physical properties", and "how hot is a jet fuel fire" don't turn up much that's helpful, or authoritative.

I've seen that 9752°F figure before, though. Just can't remember where.

ive been searching for a while today can't find anything on any kind of jet fuel. hmm. i wonder where the loosers got their info or did they make all that up too, wouldn't surprise me.

Kage
4th May 2006, 07:00 PM
The thing I don't get about this conspiracy nonsense is how the president (or whoever in the government is "lying" to us) is so good at doing it for this conspiracy and is so bad at doing it when it comes to yellowcake uranium or connections to 9/11. You would expect the level of competence to translate over to other "conspiracies."

On another note thanks to everyone on this forum for getting these arguments out there. A close friend of mine saw LC and sent me the link. I told him I didn't buy it but I hadn't come across a lot of what LC claims and couldn't really argue the points. I sent him a link to this thread and the popular mechanics article and he agreed that the conspiracy theories are not plausible. The blackbox recordings from United Flight 93 played at the Moussaoui trial didn't hurt either.

WildCat
4th May 2006, 07:03 PM
On another note thanks to everyone on this forum for getting these arguments out there. A close friend of mine saw LC and sent me the link. I told him I didn't buy it but I hadn't come across a lot of what LC claims and couldn't really argue the points. I sent him a link to this thread and the popular mechanics article and he agreed that the conspiracy theories are not plausible. The blackbox recordings from United Flight 93 played at the Moussaoui trial didn't hurt either.
Another successful effort!
And welcome, Kage!

I hope there's many more who see this thread and realize the CT is nonsense, but don't post.

dubfan
4th May 2006, 07:26 PM
The thing I don't get about this conspiracy nonsense is how the president (or whoever in the government is "lying" to us) is so good at doing it for this conspiracy and is so bad at doing it when it comes to yellowcake uranium or connections to 9/11. You would expect the level of competence to translate over to other "conspiracies."

You'd at least think they'd have the gumption to have "found" some planted some WMD in Iraq by now. Of course, the CTs have an answer for that, too. Which is that the government somehow succesfully pulled off 9/11 and is now feigning incompetence in Iraq. Just to throw everyone off the trail.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 07:33 PM
You'd at least think they'd have the gumption to have "found" some planted some WMD in Iraq by now. Of course, the CTs have an answer for that, too. Which is that the government somehow succesfully pulled off 9/11 and is now feigning incompetence in Iraq. Just to throw everyone off the trail.

So Bush Jr. is really a smart guy after all. Their incomptence is just a façade, wow, this is unprecedented!

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 07:37 PM
Hmmm, geggy has been gone a while. Let's bet he's coming back with the same old anti-Bush rhetoric and links to the same old CT sites... If he does, I want a kitty pic.:D

dubfan
4th May 2006, 07:39 PM
So Bush Jr. is really a smart guy after all. Their incomptence is just a façade, wow, this is unprecedented!

Well, part of it's a facade. The part where the security situation in the Sunni triangle is dicey -- that's real incompetence. The not-finding-any-WMD part is feigned incompetence.

Please. Try to keep up. ;)

dubfan
4th May 2006, 07:41 PM
By the way, there are two guys over in the LC Lounge -- FM258 and Zor -- who claim they never got their confirmation email. This doesn't seem like the kind of board to shirk from a challenge... Were they banned over here or something?

I can't imagine they'd fare any better than Alek or geggy or whoever the CT whipping boy du jour is.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 07:45 PM
By the way, there are two guys over in the LC Lounge -- FM258 and Zor -- who claim they never got their confirmation email. This doesn't seem like the kind of board to shirk from a challenge... Were they banned over here or something?

I can't imagine they'd fare any better than Alek or geggy or whoever the CT whipping boy du jour is.

I hope they'll try again. Keep 'em coming!

WildCat
4th May 2006, 07:57 PM
By the way, there are two guys over in the LC Lounge -- FM258 and Zor -- who claim they never got their confirmation email. This doesn't seem like the kind of board to shirk from a challenge... Were they banned over here or something?

I can't imagine they'd fare any better than Alek or geggy or whoever the CT whipping boy du jour is.
No, they're just cowards is all. Unlike their little fascist forum no one is ever banned here simply for disagreeing w/ everyone else. I suspect they can't take the heat, so they stay out of the kitchen.

Plus, this forum has way too many passionate smart people posting for them to get away w/ flooding us w/ a storm of conspiracy BS and get away w/ it unchallenged. Look what they did to the Flight 93 board, they basically shut it down w/ their constant spamming. And they're proud of it!

Regnad Kcin
4th May 2006, 08:01 PM
You're doing a heckuva job debunking, kcin...!What's to debunk? Seriously.

CptColumbo
4th May 2006, 08:35 PM
But Kcin, thanks for being the dog among all the cats on this page so far.

Kevin_Lowe
4th May 2006, 09:06 PM
No, they're just cowards is all. Unlike their little fascist forum no one is ever banned here simply for disagreeing w/ everyone else. I suspect they can't take the heat, so they stay out of the kitchen.

Plus, this forum has way too many passionate smart people posting for them to get away w/ flooding us w/ a storm of conspiracy BS and get away w/ it unchallenged. Look what they did to the Flight 93 board, they basically shut it down w/ their constant spamming. And they're proud of it!

While I'm not disagreeing with you, it's not unknown for confirmation emails to get munched by overzealous spam filters. That could have happened in this case.

They should search their spambox for emails with "JREF" in the title.

ETA: Heh, the Loosers just suspended my account. As you say, they can't take the heat.

WildCat
4th May 2006, 09:43 PM
While I'm not disagreeing with you, it's not unknown for confirmation emails to get munched by overzealous spam filters. That could have happened in this case.

They should search their spambox for emails with "JREF" in the title.
No, they didn't fill out the application fully. Because they're paranoid, they didn't put down their correct locations, and probably used fake names as well. Otherwise "they" will come for them, no doubt.

ETA: Heh, the Loosers just suspended my account. As you say, they can't take the heat.
You must have been making some good points!

dubfan
4th May 2006, 09:47 PM
No, they didn't fill out the application fully. Because they're paranoid, they didn't put down their correct locations

You mean the registration process here validates the location of your IP address vs. the state you enter?

WildCat
4th May 2006, 10:02 PM
You mean the registration process here validates the location of your IP address vs. the state you enter?
The way I understand it, yes.

Ramooone
4th May 2006, 10:21 PM
While I'm not disagreeing with you, it's not unknown for confirmation emails to get munched by overzealous spam filters. That could have happened in this case.

They should search their spambox for emails with "JREF" in the title.

ETA: Heh, the Loosers just suspended my account. As you say, they can't take the heat.

not surprising, i was banned also.

CptColumbo
4th May 2006, 10:28 PM
BTW I have sent an e-mail and left a voice mail at the Department of Homeland Security, asking for clairification of the Chertoff's relationship. Just to get the other side's story. It doesn't hurt to double check a story. However, I don't expect an immediate response.
Anyone wishing to independently verify my corespondence with Ben Chertoff:
MAIL:
POPULAR MECHANICS
810 Seventh Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10019

FAX:
212-586-5562

E-MAIL:
popularmechanics@hearst.com

dubfan
4th May 2006, 10:30 PM
BTW I have sent an e-mail and left a voice mail at the Department of Homeland Security, asking for clairification of the Chertoff's relationship. Just to get the other side's story. It doesn't hurt to double check a story. However, I don't expect an immediate response.
Anyone wishing to check with Ben Chertoff:
MAIL:
POPULAR MECHANICS
810 Seventh Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10019

FAX:
212-586-5562

E-MAIL:
popularmechanics@hearst.com

There you go, bringing facts into it. AGAIN.

CptColumbo
4th May 2006, 10:34 PM
There you go, bringing facts into it. AGAIN.
Since my education is in the field of Theatre (not engineering or metalurgy), the only way I can help here is using what journalism skills I learned in elective courses and double-check the easy facts.

And make wise-cracks.

BTW welcome dubfan.

Kevin_Lowe
4th May 2006, 10:36 PM
You must have been making some good points!

Thanks. Nothing that others haven't said before, of course, but that's because the local kooks don't have anything new to say either.

I was "Foilal Peaucha", a cunning anagram of Alfoil Chapeau. I got in 33 posts before they banned me, so that's 33 blows struck for common sense.

Possibly the post that got me banned was linking to Gravy's debunking of LC2, in a thread about a guy wanting to make copies of LC2 to distribute around his school. Naughty me... :rolleyes:

They're a funny lot over there. If you show up saying "I think a UFO from Area 51 took out the towers with holographic plane-missiles that triggered a suitcase nuke built into the basement when the WTC was constructed", they say "Hail and well met fellow truth-seeker!". If you show up saying "That glowing stuff might not actually be molten steel", they say "Aargh! Government shill! Moron! Where do you pull this stuff from, your backside! Why has this traitor not been banned?".

CptColumbo
4th May 2006, 10:39 PM
They're a funny lot over there. If you show up saying "I think a UFO from Area 51 took out the towers with holographic plane-missiles that triggered a suitcase nuke built into the basement when the WTC was constructed", they say "Hail and well met fellow truth-seeker!". If you show up saying "That glowing stuff might not actually be molten steel", they say "Aargh! Government shill! Moron! Where do you pull this stuff from, your backside! Why has this traitor not been banned?".
HMMM...that gives me an idea.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 10:40 PM
Thanks. Nothing that others haven't said before, of course, but that's because the local kooks don't have anything new to say either.

Maybe they were intimidated by your name. It's not everyday you get the visit of a hockey legend in your forum...;) :D

CptColumbo
4th May 2006, 10:41 PM
Maybe they were intimidated by your name. It's not everyday you get the visit of a hockey legend in your forum...;) :D
Should I use Maurice Richard, or Neal Broten?

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 10:46 PM
Try Zdeno Chara, they won't say anything bad to you... ever

his stats: Ht.: 6'9", Wt.: 261

http://www.freestylephotography.com/OSHC/Game6/image/page12.html

CptColumbo
4th May 2006, 10:49 PM
Try Zdeno Chara, they won't say anything bad to you... ever

his stats: Ht.: 6'9", Wt.: 261

http://www.freestylephotography.com/OSHC/Game6/image/page12.html
HOLY COW!
The Maple Leaf looks like he just messed his pants.

I haven't watched the NHL much since they took my North Stars.

Pardalis
4th May 2006, 10:50 PM
HOLY COW!
The Maple Leaf looks like he just messed his pants.

I think he did actually...

MRWiffen
5th May 2006, 02:43 AM
Good question. First instinct was to check the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. No luck. Google searches for "jp4 physical properties", and "how hot is a jet fuel fire" don't turn up much that's helpful, or authoritative.

I've seen that 9752°F figure before, though. Just can't remember where.
Check the ASTM ( www.astm.org )they should have some numbers for the heat of combustion. Also jp4 is military jet fuel (I think, I've never dealt with this one) commercial jets use Jet A or Jet A-1. I'll look up the specifications when I get to work (I work in a lab that tests Jet A-1).

Ramooone, if you want a little Jet A-1 for a demo burn I can get some but getting it across the border into the US probably won't happen. If you come up to Toronto I can set it up with no problem though.

geggy
5th May 2006, 03:02 AM
Hers a fun picture for you all to look at...

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7131/smiles0gz.jpg
This photo was taken at the 9/11 memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral. Printed in the European version of Time magazine on 24 September 2001. Page 56. (http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=23172)

The sinister look of barbara is freaking priceless...

GRAVY YOU STILL OWE ME OSAMA TAPE

kookbreaker
5th May 2006, 03:56 AM
Apparently, there is a rift developing in the lunatic conspiracy theory community. In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3422) Dylan Avery says "I blew up on the North Cali alliance (http://sf911truth.org/) and I shouldn't have, I should have merely laughed at their arrogance and walked away, but I don't like people trashing me in my own element."

I wonder what the issue was? :confused:

Avery obviously seems to have problems controlling his temper whenever his ludicrous claims are doubted in the slightest. He's a spoiled brat who got way too much attention and now has his own cult.

60hzxtl
5th May 2006, 03:59 AM
Very conclusive geggy!

Look up the difference between "priceless" and "worthless."

You probably vote by the looks of the candidate. That's why people like kings - they "look" like a king.

Speaking of looking and seeing, how many people saw a Missile hit the Pentagon?

And my all time favorite from LC - "there were no windows on the planes that hit the WTC" except that you can't see windows with the United paint scheme, even at slow landing speeds.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 04:12 AM
GRAVY YOU STILL OWE ME OSAMA TAPE
geggy, can you read?

It's nice that you're amused by memorial services for 9/11 victims. You seem like a swell guy.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 04:34 AM
Geggy :

Watch the video footage of the collapse of the south tower (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/).

You can SEE what happens.

Thanks, doctor.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg

Geggy, does that look CONTROLLED ??

geggy
5th May 2006, 04:36 AM
Huh? Who said anything about me being amused by the memorial service? I said I found the sinister look on Barbara's face to be priceless is all. Jeez. Again with the smearing.

I did do my homework. I looked around in the internet and even asked activists for if an osama video without the subtitles ever exist. There's no such thing as so far what I've seen and heard.

Are you lying to us?

Curnir
5th May 2006, 04:42 AM
Is it just me or does Bush Seniors arm look strange (short, bent at a strange angle etc)?

Belz...
5th May 2006, 04:46 AM
Yeah i admit I made mistakes

:jaw-dropp

There's hope!

when I thought nookular was planted in the basement of the building. But there were several witnesses

So... were you wrong or not ?

Some points made in the FEMA report and NIST are very deceptive and misleading, they had omitted so many facts.

You mean, the fact that some facts were omitted is necessarily indication of deception ?

News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating."

Your point ?

Dylan Avery says "I blew up on the North Cali alliance (http://sf911truth.org/) and I shouldn't have, I should have merely laughed at their arrogance and walked away, but I don't like people trashing me in my own element."

He BLEW UP !! Wow. CTers must think he exploded!

bob_kark
5th May 2006, 04:46 AM
Is it just me or does Bush Seniors arm look strange (short, bent at a strange angle etc)?

that prove he is teh globalz!!

Belz...
5th May 2006, 04:47 AM
I sent him a link to this thread and the popular mechanics article and he agreed that the conspiracy theories are not plausible.

Welcome.

Your friend seems much more reasonable than most people, then.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 04:49 AM
The sinister look of barbara is freaking priceless...

So what... what does that mean ?

And never mind barbara. Look at Clinton. He looks bored.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 04:51 AM
that prove he is teh globalz!!

Congrats on 1000 posts+, 43.

MRWiffen
5th May 2006, 04:51 AM
Check the ASTM ( www.astm.org )they should have some numbers for the heat of combustion. Also jp4 is military jet fuel (I think, I've never dealt with this one) commercial jets use Jet A or Jet A-1. I'll look up the specifications when I get to work (I work in a lab that tests Jet A-1).

Ramooone, if you want a little Jet A-1 for a demo burn I can get some but getting it across the border into the US probably won't happen. If you come up to Toronto I can set it up with no problem though.
Jet A or Jet A-1 Net heat of combustion 42.8 MJ/kg (source ASTM D1655). Now all that is needed is the mass of fuel and the amount of heat that can be produced is easily calculated. Unfortunately the temperature that would be reached is dependent on alot of factors (surface area, time it burned, etc.) that would be at best a guess. Beyond the numbers from the ASTM this gets outside of my area of expertise very quickly and I don't want to even guess. Unlike Geggy I don't like being obviously wrong.

geggy
5th May 2006, 04:52 AM
Belz...

In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.

Thanks for linking plaguepuppy. Rarely I would go to that site and i didnt realize how much information it holds...Here the video of what I was talking about when the north tower shook before it came down indicating that bombs may have been implanted in the basement of the tower. I'm pretty sure it's legitmate because as the trembling started, you can see the shifting of the smoke.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

geggy
5th May 2006, 04:59 AM
You mean, the fact that some facts were omitted is necessarily indication of deception ?

No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.



Your point ?

That paragraph was copied and pasted, by me, from the FEMA report. They were trying to trick you into thinking the building in the center of the picture was WTC7.

milesalpha
5th May 2006, 05:11 AM
Just want to throw out a big thank you to the people here who have researched this silliness so well. I have been butting heads for months with CTs on a forum called Yahooka (ok I am a bit of a pothead, advancing age and arthritis is to blame....really!). I discovered Gravy's useful analysis and they have been unable to answer any of his points to date. Lots of name calling (shill, government stooge, the usual, since I am Canadian, they are odd charges) followed and they reverently cling to Steven Jones little paper. One particlualrly fun fellow came to his conclusion by interpretting the data himself. Despite the fact that he lacks any kind of university education, he was able to prove (to himself) that seismic readings showed there were bombs in the WTC. Small wonder I have so little hair left.

60hzxtl
5th May 2006, 05:28 AM
:




He BLEW UP !! Wow. CTers must think he exploded!


I guess it wasn't a 'controlled' explosion then?

Gravy
5th May 2006, 06:10 AM
Here the video of what I was talking about when the north tower shook before it came down indicating that bombs may have been implanted in the basement of the tower. I'm pretty sure it's legitmate because as the trembling started, you can see the shifting of the smoke.

Another day, another mind-blowingly stupid post from our ever-fixéd star of conspiratorial conundrums. geggy, that video is supposed to HELP your cause?

Holy cow. I have to go for a walk.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 06:15 AM
Just want to throw out a big thank you to the people here who have researched this silliness so well. I have been butting heads for months with CTs on a forum called Yahooka (ok I am a bit of a pothead, advancing age and arthritis is to blame....really!). I discovered Gravy's useful analysis and they have been unable to answer any of his points to date. Lots of name calling (shill, government stooge, the usual, since I am Canadian, they are odd charges) followed and they reverently cling to Steven Jones little paper. One particlualrly fun fellow came to his conclusion by interpretting the data himself. Despite the fact that he lacks any kind of university education, he was able to prove (to himself) that seismic readings showed there were bombs in the WTC. Small wonder I have so little hair left.
Welcome aboard! Just minutes ago I finished the second version of my "Loose Change" critique, and I'm very pleased with it. It's a big improvement. I'll post a link to it here shortly.

Check my sig to see what I think of Steven Jones. Lord, i would love to debate him.

Shrinker
5th May 2006, 06:22 AM
No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.

That paragraph was copied and pasted, by me, from the FEMA report. They were trying to trick you into thinking the building in the center of the picture was WTC7.

Geggy the official reports are not obliged to plot and explain the trajectory of every single piece of debris during those collapses. Just because they don't explain you particular favourite blobs it doesn't mean they're hiding anything. If they explained those bits, you'd be demanding explanations for other bits. Likewise, they aren't obliged to answer every single question that gets asked, especially when those questions are absolutely meaningless when viewed alongside all the moutains of real evidence they have in their possession. As much as you'd like to think otherwise, they're simply doing a job, not standing trial.

shuize
5th May 2006, 06:26 AM
When you cling to CT like a religion, it's not hard to dodge and weave.

True Believer: "The WTC was a controlled demolition."

Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Does that look like a controlled demolition to you?"

True Believer: "Watch this video, man."

Skeptic: "Watch the same unedited video."

True Believer: "Freefall, man. The building fell at freefall straight down."

Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Do see all the material falling faster than the main structure?"

True Believer: "Explosions, man. The buildings were blown up. That's what melted the steel beams and blew out all the dust."

Skeptic: "Explosions don't melt steel."

True Believer: "Thermite, man. Thermite melted the steel."

Skeptic: "Thermite is not an explosive."

True Believer: "Nukes, man. Nukes in the basement."

Skeptic: "Survivors from the basement say otherwise."

True Believer: "The Pentagon, man. Small hole. No plane."

Skeptic: "Different pictures. Big hole. Airplane parts. Passenger DNA. Witnesses."

True Believer: Bush sucks, man.

And so on ...

Hellbound
5th May 2006, 06:30 AM
Belz...

In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.

Ah, progress!!!

So, consider your statement here.

IN a controlled demolition, the dust and debris cloud is made when the building reaches the ground.

Not when the explosives are set off.

Thus, the clouds of dust and debris are not evidence of explosives, just evidence of impact.

Now that we've got that silliness out of the way...

kookbreaker
5th May 2006, 06:37 AM
No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.

NIST and FEMA's reports were not written with the intent of satisfying psychopathic nutcase sociopathic ghoulish scumbag conspiracy nutters like you. They were done to answer serious questions about the nature of building construction and how things fail. Those things are concerns for real engineers who have real jobs (unlike all of the Loosers, who've convinced themselves that The Man is keeping them on the night shift at the Dairy Queen). Since things can fail, engineers like to know why. That way they might prevent or reduce failures in the future. So NIST really has little concern for your attempts to feed off the dead. They have important work to do, rather than chase after your silly puffs of smoke or sounds heard during a fire.

The closest NIST has come to commenting on conspiracy psychopaths was to say that there was no evidence of explosives. And there wasn't.

CurtC
5th May 2006, 06:39 AM
In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.Finally geggy says something that I can fully agree with. Only took 130 posts.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 06:52 AM
Roxdog just invited me to come on his (her?) radio show.

Is that bad?

LOL

Gravy
5th May 2006, 06:56 AM
I'd llke a few folks to check the file out before I start spreading the word about it. CurtC, I sent you a pm about hosting.

I just want to be sure that the links work for you and that the thing looks okay. It's a 4.8 mb doc file.

And thanks for everyone's constructive criticism...I'm actually proud of this version. You can download it here:

http://media2.uploadjar.com/file.php?file=uploads/911_loose_change_2_guide.doc

Gravy
5th May 2006, 07:05 AM
Roxdog just invited me to come on his (her?) radio show.

Is that bad?

LOL

Congrats. I bet you get a nice gift basket when you appear.
Seriously, though, it's a podcast, and he's said it averages about 50 live listeners and 200 downloads.

He could reach far more people with his arguments on this forum, but his technique is simply to dump a bunch of links here and then disappear.

Thare's a reason he likes the live format: he is incapable of debating an issue on its merits in a format like this, where facts are required, but I'm sure he does fine when he controls everything and can shout you down.

When I was posting on the LC forum he kept butting in, throwing insults, then leaving, without ever adding anything productive. So I told him he'd need to apologize to me and agree to a serious, civil debate, but of course he never did.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 07:06 AM
In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.

Okay... so basically you're saying that it looks like a controlled demo because of the DUST ? How could a building collapse and NOT produce dust ?

Your position is untenable. The "squibs" you see are unconvincing, the pattern of collapse is incompatible with a controlled demolition, and the damage to surrounding buildings was significant, something you don't get in controlled implosion. How do you explain all these discrepancies ?

Belz...
5th May 2006, 07:09 AM
No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.

Maybe because they never considered them to be relevant. And that may be because the people who made the report are professionals who know what they're talking about and will not interpret inconsequential things as important evidence.

That paragraph was copied and pasted, by me, from the FEMA report. They were trying to trick you into thinking the building in the center of the picture was WTC7.

Didn't see that picture. The link was broken.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 07:11 AM
When you cling to CT like a religion, it's not hard to dodge and weave.

True Believer: "The WTC was a controlled demolition."
Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Does that look like a controlled demolition to you?"
True Believer: "Watch this video, man."
Skeptic: "Watch the same unedited video."
True Believer: "Freefall, man. The building fell at freefall straight down."
Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Do see all the material falling faster than the main structure?"
True Believer: "Explosions, man. The buildings were blown up. That's what melted the steel beams and blew out all the dust."
Skeptic: "Explosions don't melt steel."
True Believer: "Thermite, man. Thermite melted the steel."
Skeptic: "Thermite is not an explosive."
True Believer: "Nukes, man. Nukes in the basement."
Skeptic: "Survivors from the basement say otherwise."
True Believer: "The Pentagon, man. Small hole. No plane."
Skeptic: "Different pictures. Big hole. Airplane parts. Passenger DNA. Witnesses."
True Believer: Bush sucks, man.

And so on ...

I do believe this is the best summary to this thread that anyone could have thought of. Nice work.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 07:22 AM
Congrats. I bet you get a nice gift basket when you appear.
Seriously, though, it's a podcast, and he's said it averages about 50 live listeners and 200 downloads.

Woooooooooooooooooooooo............

I'm gonna see if I can get him to agree to have you on. Actually, what I'd love to see is a debate between you & Dylan Avery.

geggy
5th May 2006, 07:27 AM
Finally geggy says something that I can fully agree with. Only took 130 posts.


Does this mean you will start listening closely to me now?

I'm going to try and explain my point of view here so bear with my language as I don't speak in physics/engineering technical language. You need to check the beginning of the north tower collapsing. The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below. If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 07:31 AM
No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.
What should have been seen and heard at the WTC on 9/11?
That's a serious question. I'd like you to tell us what SHOULD have been seen and heard, from a CT point of view.

That paragraph was copied and pasted, by me, from the FEMA report. They were trying to trick you into thinking the building in the center of the picture was WTC7.
This quote from FEMA?
"The presence of fire and smoke on lower floors is also confirmed by the early television news coverage of WTC 7, which indicated light-colored smoke rising from the lower floors of WTC 7.

Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.

News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating."
Is it this photo you're talking about? That's WTC 7 on fire in the middle.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg


edited to add FEMA quote

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 07:34 AM
No, they didn't fill out the application fully. Because they're paranoid, they didn't put down their correct locations, and probably used fake names as well. Otherwise "they" will come for them, no doubt.Considering that their mods have no ethics when it comes to private information, they're probably afraid that the same applies here.

I've seen at least two examples of threats to publish personal information (email addresses and names) and/or snitch to people's employers about posting on internet forums from work. I'll see if I can find some examples.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 07:36 AM
Does this mean you will start listening closely to me now?

I'm going to try and explain my point of view here so bear with my language as I don't speak in physics/engineering technical language. You need to check the beginning of the north tower collapsing. The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below. If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.

A hundred million pounds isn't enough weight to collapse a floor?

geggy
5th May 2006, 07:37 AM
Belz...

Soo what you're saying the FEMA report is based on their own "professional" assumptions and theories? If they're going to write a report, at least they could get their facts straight.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 07:44 AM
Woooooooooooooooooooooo............

I'm gonna see if I can get him to agree to have you on. Actually, what I'd love to see is a debate between you & Dylan Avery.
My conversation with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas went like this:
They (Holding one of the flyers I was handing out that used their own words to denounce them):
"What is this? Our names are on this!"
Me: Do you stand behind your work?"
"Damn right!"
"Very well." i walk away.
"Yeah, just walk away!!! How do you sleep at night??? Go collect your government paycheck!!!"

No, I wouldn't want to debate them. They're such hotheaded morons that it wouldn't be interesting.

brettDbass
5th May 2006, 07:47 AM
geggy should be applauded for one thing at least, he continues to post here rather than seeking the solace of the debate-free-zone that is the LC forum.

I remain to be convinced about his motives, reasoning ability or even that he believes what he posts (as pointed out by Mercutio).

Now I'm going back to lurking and reading this fascinating thread.
Thank you all.

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 07:47 AM
Thanks for linking plaguepuppy. Rarely I would go to that site and i didnt realize how much information it holds...Here the video of what I was talking about when the north tower shook before it came down indicating that bombs may have been implanted in the basement of the tower. I'm pretty sure it's legitmate because as the trembling started, you can see the shifting of the smoke.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

geggy, DID YOU EVEN READ THIS THREAD BEFORE YOU JOINED IT? WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS! gosh

Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.

Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?

Gravy
5th May 2006, 07:48 AM
Belz...

Soo what you're saying the FEMA report is based on their own "professional" assumptions and theories? If they're going to write a report, at least they could get their facts straight.
What facts didn't they get straight?

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 07:49 AM
I guess it wasn't a 'controlled' explosion then?

Maybe spontanious combustion?

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 07:50 AM
Welcome aboard! Just minutes ago I finished the second version of my "Loose Change" critique, and I'm very pleased with it. It's a big improvement. I'll post a link to it here shortly.

Check my sig to see what I think of Steven Jones. Lord, i would love to debate him.

Gosh Gravy, you ARE a superhero.:eek:

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 07:50 AM
Loose Change crew Q&A in Oakland, CA:

Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-810472779099754665

Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7804575956259210011

DavidJames
5th May 2006, 07:52 AM
The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below. How much weight was there pushing down. How much weight would have been necessary, show your work.

If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then why didn't the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecondWhat evidence, other then a video, do you have that that there was no pause and how much of a pause should there have been, please provide, from a structural engineering perspective the analysis which supports your conclusion.

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 07:52 AM
When you cling to CT like a religion, it's not hard to dodge and weave.

True Believer: "The WTC was a controlled demolition."

Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Does that look like a controlled demolition to you?"

True Believer: "Watch this video, man."

Skeptic: "Watch the same unedited video."

True Believer: "Freefall, man. The building fell at freefall straight down."

Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Do see all the material falling faster than the main structure?"

True Believer: "Explosions, man. The buildings were blown up. That's what melted the steel beams and blew out all the dust."

Skeptic: "Explosions don't melt steel."

True Believer: "Thermite, man. Thermite melted the steel."

Skeptic: "Thermite is not an explosive."

True Believer: "Nukes, man. Nukes in the basement."

Skeptic: "Survivors from the basement say otherwise."

True Believer: "The Pentagon, man. Small hole. No plane."

Skeptic: "Different pictures. Big hole. Airplane parts. Passenger DNA. Witnesses."

True Believer: Bush sucks, man.

And so on ...

And it's always ends with some Hitler comparison.:(

dubfan
5th May 2006, 07:52 AM
My conversation with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas went like this:
They (Holding one of the flyers I was handing out that used their own words to denounce them):
"What is this? Our names are on this!"
Me: Do you stand behind your work?"
"Damn right!"
"Very well." i walk away.
"Yeah, just walk away!!! How do you sleep at night??? Go collect your government paycheck!!!"

No, I wouldn't want to debate them. They're such hotheaded morons that it wouldn't be interesting.

Wow. Don't blame you.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 07:54 AM
Loose Change crew Q&A in Oakland, CA:

Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-810472779099754665

Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7804575956259210011


DID HE SAY THE PEOPLE ARE REALLY SECONDARY?

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 07:57 AM
Belz...

Soo what you're saying the FEMA report is based on their own "professional" assumptions and theories? If they're going to write a report, at least they could get their facts straight.

Man you're one step away from me calling Chuck Norris and make him roundhouse kick you in the face.:mad:

kookbreaker
5th May 2006, 07:57 AM
No, I wouldn't want to debate them. They're such hotheaded morons that it wouldn't be interesting.

Avery is destined to say the wrong thing to the wrong person at some point. Then he will have some lost teeth. He's really too wrapped up in this for his own good.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 07:58 AM
(watching chipmunk's videos....)

OMG...Cynthia McKinney.... And the crowd goes nuts.

Wow.

kookbreaker
5th May 2006, 07:58 AM
DID HE SAY THE PEOPLE ARE REALLY SECONDARY?

Are you surprised? The Loose Change crew care only about their own egos.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 08:01 AM
Man you're one step away from me calling Chuck Norris and make him roundhouse kick you in the face.:mad:
Agreed. That's why I didn't touch the "assumptions and theories" part of that post. I do think geggy likes to bait us, even though we eat the bait and the boat he's in each time.

NobbyNobbs
5th May 2006, 08:05 AM
Either it was a very sucessful terrorist attack or it was a sloppy one..

The demolishing of WTC started from the top

Wow...I step away from the forum for 24 hours and look what happens...Gaggly actually got two statements essentially correct! And it only took over 100 posts to do so!

dubfan
5th May 2006, 08:09 AM
Are you surprised? The Loose Change crew care only about their own egos.

Some dimwit is claiming Al Franken was called and told not to come to work on 9/11.

One of the LC crew says: "Is there evidence for that?"

ROFLLMFAO When did these guys start caring about evidence?

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 08:11 AM
Loose Change crew Q&A in Oakland, CA:

Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-810472779099754665

Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7804575956259210011


Could they at least dress up for a film première? How can anyone take these students seriously?

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 08:13 AM
Random thought: I would be willing to bet my mortgage that we could get Bruce Willis to contribute his voice-over, if he was approached respectfully and seriously. Especially if he (or his agent) was approached by an advocate for the project with ties to the armed forces, and we (collectively) had our isht together.I just had a thought. What about the Mythbusters?

geggy
5th May 2006, 08:17 AM
What should have been seen and heard at the WTC on 9/11?
That's a serious question. I'd like you to tell us what SHOULD have been seen and heard, from a CT point of view.


This quote from FEMA?

Is it this photo you're talking about? That's WTC 7 on fire in the middle.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg


edited to add FEMA quote

Ha! Another picture that's deceiving. The snoke shouldn't have been shifting sideways. The fire coming from the lower floors shouldn't have ben producing that much smoke, even if it does, the building would've had collapsed sooner. The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.

Manny
5th May 2006, 08:18 AM
Some dimwit is claiming Al Franken was called and told not to come to work on 9/11.Oh, holy crap. In one of his books, Franken is ridiculing 9-11 CTers. He comments on the whole "4,000 Jews stayed home on 9-11" thing by joking that he was working in the Trade Center and that Ed Koch himself called him and told him to stay home. There's no doubt to anyone who is sane whether he was kidding.

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 08:21 AM
The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.

Agreed. This picture isn't much evidence. For once you are showing good judgment. Now try and apply it to the rest.


edited to specific quote I agree with

CurtC
5th May 2006, 08:25 AM
Ha! Another picture that's deceiving. The snoke shouldn't have been shifting sideways. The fire coming from the lower floors shouldn't have ben producing that much smoke, even if it does, the building would've had collapsed sooner. The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.The smoke is obviously coming out of WTC7 in that photo. The dust from the collapse of 1 and 2 has pretty much cleared away, and you can see the streams of smoke coming out the windows of WTC7. There's just no question there.

So now you're saying that with that much smoke, WTC7 should have collapsed sooner??? And now we need to come up with reasons why it stood for as long as it did?

60hzxtl
5th May 2006, 08:26 AM
Loose Change crew Q&A in Oakland, CA:

Part 1:
Part 2:




Looks like they dressed up for this event. Hope they get long pants soon!

Gravy
5th May 2006, 08:28 AM
Ha! Another picture that's deceiving. The snoke shouldn't have been shifting sideways. The fire coming from the lower floors shouldn't have ben producing that much smoke, even if it does, the building would've had collapsed sooner. The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.
No, geggy. You are wrong again. How many times is that today? The photo is from late in the day. There is a steady wind from the north. See also the photo I posted a few pages ago, from the same angle but closer, which is a video screenshot.

So you're saying that the building did collapse from fire, right? I just want to get that straight.

And do you agree that FEMA was correct in describing what we see in the photos?

60hzxtl
5th May 2006, 08:28 AM
Ha! Another picture that's deceiving. The snoke shouldn't have been shifting sideways. The fire coming from the lower floors shouldn't have ben producing that much smoke, even if it does, the building would've had collapsed sooner. The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.


If anybody knows what it means to sell smoke its the Loose Changers!

WildCat
5th May 2006, 08:28 AM
DID HE SAY THE PEOPLE ARE REALLY SECONDARY?
Ugghhh, I only managed to make it through about 2 minutes of the first one. I had to stop after nutjob #1 said that such a conspiracy wouldn't take that many people, and those that did it did so "unconsciously". I swear it would be all I can manage not to punch those idiots in the face if I was ever close enough...

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 08:30 AM
Oh, holy crap. In one of his books, Franken is ridiculing 9-11 CTers. He comments on the whole "4,000 Jews stayed home on 9-11" thing by joking that he was working in the Trade Center and that Ed Koch himself called him and told him to stay home. There's no doubt to anyone who is sane whether he was kidding.The funny thing is, I knew that, you knew that--yet no one in that auditorium seemed to know. Many of these people claim they've done years worth of "research", and they haven't cleared up this little tidbit?

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 08:32 AM
The smoke is obviously coming out of WTC7 in that photo. The dust from the collapse of 1 and 2 has pretty much cleared away, and you can see the streams of smoke coming out the windows of WTC7. There's just no question there.

I tend to agree with geggy on this one, a still picture can be misleading as to when exactly it was taken. It is inconclusive.

But this video on the other hand is ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that all hell broke out in WTC7.

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

bob_kark
5th May 2006, 08:33 AM
I just had a thought. What about the Mythbusters?

The Mythbusters would ensure that something would be blown up. I like it! I just wonder if that would be possible.

WildCat
5th May 2006, 08:37 AM
The funny thing is, I knew that, you knew that--yet no one in that auditorium seemed to know. Many of these people claim they've done years worth of "research", and they haven't cleared up this little tidbit?
Here's how research works when you're a paranoid lunatic conspiracy theorist:

One original CT web site gets online, other CTers see this and start their own sites, all w/ the same info as the first. This goes on at an exponential rate, until there are a million web sites supporting the CT, giving the CTer a million sites to do "research" on. Of course, they all have the same info as the original site, but every copycat site confirms the reality of the theory for the True Believer.

WildCat
5th May 2006, 08:39 AM
I tend to agree with geggy on this one, a still picture can be misleading as to when exactly it was taken. It is inconclusive.

But this video on the other hand is ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that all hell broke out in WTC7.

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Holy crap that video is proof of a demolition!!! The firefighter says "pull"!!!!!!! :jaw-dropp

bob_kark
5th May 2006, 08:40 AM
Congrats on 1000 posts+, 43.

Thank you 1. Now to get back to making more toe nail fungus commercials.

dissonance
5th May 2006, 08:45 AM
One original CT web site gets online, other CTers see this and start their own sites, all w/ the same info as the first. This goes on at an exponential rate, until there are a million web sites supporting the CT, giving the CTer a million sites to do "research" on. Of course, they all have the same info as the original site, but every copycat site confirms the reality of the theory for the True Believer.

Yep. They all just reference each other (like a lot of the anti-vaccine stuff, actually).

I'm keeping an eye on the Chertoff/Chertoff stuff, since it'll be interesting to see if that continues to get play or if they accept the debunking. I'm guessing we'll still be seeing 'they're cousins' for years to come, even if both Chertoffs hold a press conference and produce the birth and marriage certificates of every member of their families. That'll just be evidence of a coverup, of course.

pgwenthold
5th May 2006, 08:51 AM
Yep. They all just reference each other (like a lot of the anti-vaccine stuff, actually).

That and Steve Jones.

"Have you seen the Brigham Young report that shows that it was a controlled demolition? They make some very interesting points."

blah

Gravy
5th May 2006, 08:51 AM
I tend to agree with geggy on this one, a still picture can be misleading as to when exactly it was taken. It is inconclusive.

But this video on the other hand is ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that all hell broke out in WTC7.

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

For me this movie really does it, and it certainly shut up the Loosers on their forum when they said there was no convincing video of an inferno in WTC 7. It's a big download, 28 mb. Starting at 2:58, there is a very claer, very hi-res look at the smoke billowing out of nearly every floor. I used a screenshot from it a few pages back.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/7wtc_plusrubble.mov
ETA Aah, after all that the link is dead. Good thing I downloaded it. I'll sell you a copy, geggy.

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 09:00 AM
There's a difference between taking this picture, http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg, and jumping the gun and saying "FEMA manipulated their facts!", and looking at it objectively. It doesn't particularly convince me as to when it was taken and where the smoke exactly comes from, but I'm sure it wasn't the only piece of evidence FEMA had in their hands to make their investigation. I was just saying this specific piece of evidence is insufficient to make ANY conclusion.;)

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 09:01 AM
Who wants to crash their next event in NYC?

im not sure when it is. but i want alot of us to go and just ask as many questions as possible.

OH man, i just heard some guy in the audience of video 1, saying "can you please put the temperatures into fahrenheit, im not smart enough to convert the celsius" hahaha no wonder that guy believes it!

Tirdun
5th May 2006, 09:03 AM
Thanks for your hard work, Here are my suggestions and fixes:

Page 6 Para 7: I'm not sure what FEMA has to do with the CT conspiracy, but you might want to put a note here that says the response is covered further on (Page 7 Para 2)

Page 9 Para 4: If you want to expand the Boeing stock details, Boeing had been on a steady downturn in stock value since Oct 2000.
http://tools.morningstar.com/charts/Mcharts.aspx?Country=USA&Security=BA&sLevel=A
This is minor, though, and is somewhat covered by your existing note. If someone could find any info on Boeing during that period, there might be very clear reasons why its stock was down. For example, Northrop Grummund (NOC) was on a steady uptick, maybe Boeing lost a contract?

Page 9 LAST Para: "No, ton" -> "No
Page 20, top image: "hhow" -> "how" in left caption.

Page 20, Para 2: "Who launch" -> "Who launches"

Page 20, Para 4: "pie:ce" -> "piece"

Page 50, last line: "brigt" -> "bright"

Page 98, first line: Fix "its"

Page 29, Bottom picture: I get no picture, says I need a plugin. Not sure if this is a concern or not. This pops up a few more times, pictures requiring some sort of plugin. I would consider changing them all to a single format.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 09:08 AM
Soo what you're saying the FEMA report is based on their own "professional" assumptions and theories? If they're going to write a report, at least they could get their facts straight.

If I'm writing a report on a major accident involving a Pinto, and I mention the faulty fuel lines, do I really HAVE to mention the odd fact that the windshield seems to have shattered BEFORE impact ? Would that be relevant to the car blowing up ?

The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below.

You're saying that 20,000 tons of pulverized concrete weighs less than 20,000 tons of solid concrete ?

Belz...
5th May 2006, 09:13 AM
Ha! Another picture that's deceiving. The snoke shouldn't have been shifting sideways. The fire coming from the lower floors shouldn't have ben producing that much smoke, even if it does, the building would've had collapsed sooner. The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.

I'm sure you're not denying that there was an important fire in WTC7.

Look. Several floors on fire:

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

Lots of smoke here:

http://911review.org/images/wtc7-frame-40.jpg

And if you doubt that it was close enough to get damage from the collapse of the two towers:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1067.jpg

Dammit

Gravy
5th May 2006, 09:16 AM
Loose Change crew Q&A in Oakland, CA:

Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-810472779099754665

Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7804575956259210011

Can anyone confirm that he (Bermas) is actually saying "The people are secondary?" I've listened a few times and isn't perfectly clear. Not that it would be surprising – it's exactly the kind of thing they say. But I wanted to slip that quote into my new critique, and I don't want to get it wrong.

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 09:17 AM
Page 29, Bottom picture: I get no picture, says I need a plugin. Not sure if this is a concern or not. This pops up a few more times, pictures requiring some sort of plugin. I would consider changing them all to a single format.I haven't reviewed the whole thing, yet, but I'm getting a similar message on page 4 that says:

"QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture."

on four of the seven images.

Regnad Kcin
5th May 2006, 09:20 AM
Does this mean you will start listening closely to me now?Any point you attempt to make will be judged on its own merits. I mean, would you allow someone to try to slip this by you in debate?

Okay, I agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But the Earth is still flat!

I'm going to try and explain my point of view here so bear with my language as I don't speak in physics/engineering technical language. You need to check the beginning of the north tower collapsing. The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below. If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.Not one structural engineer in the entire world agrees with you. Doesn't that make you "pause?"

CptColumbo
5th May 2006, 09:21 AM
I'm sure you're not denying that there was an important fire in WTC7.

Look. Several floors on fire:

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg

Lots of smoke here:

http://911review.org/images/wtc7-frame-40.jpg

And if you doubt that it was close enough to get damage from the collapse of the two towers:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1067.jpg

Dammit

In the close-up picture of several floors on fire. Was that before or after the collapse of either tower?

Belz...
5th May 2006, 09:22 AM
In the close-up picture of several floors on fire. Was that before or after the collapse of either tower?

That's a rather funny question, columbo. How could 7 be on fire BEFORE the collapse ? Or did some flaming material come down onto the building prior to that ?

CptColumbo
5th May 2006, 09:27 AM
That's a rather funny question, columbo. How could 7 be on fire BEFORE the collapse ? Or did some flaming material come down onto the building prior to that ?
I'm just anticipating what geggy's next question would be.
When the planes initially hit, there was some flaming wreckage ejected from the impact and falling out the holes after.
But at what point in the timeline was the picture taken?

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 09:35 AM
I haven't reviewed the whole thing, yet, but I'm getting a similar message on page 4 that says:

"QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture."


on four of the seven images.
Possible solutions:
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/18789
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq/FAQ00534.htm

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 09:38 AM
But at what point in the timeline was the picture taken?

The WTC7 fire and collapse is a very time-oriented debate. It is dangerous to post these images and not knowing when exactly they were taken, wether prior or after the WTC towers collapse. Because the fires by themselves are not sufficient reason for WTC7 to collapse. The fires and damage caused by plane debris AND the damage caused by the towers collapsing right next to it ARE the reasons it collapsed. My fellow skeptics, there is a danger here of falling into geggy's way of jumping to conclusions.;)

CurtC
5th May 2006, 09:39 AM
Well, I guess theoretically, flaming debris from the first airplane crash could have hit WTC7, but I believe that the damage to it happened only after the North Tower collapsed.

I have a question, maybe someone here is familiar with the videos and already knows this. In some of the videos of the towers collapsing, I have seen these tall skinny pieces left sticking up after the rubble pile passes, and these pieces then start to tip over since they're no longer supported sideways. I've thought that these pieces were sections of the steel core columns that were left behind. I would like to check out the idea that this could have been the North Tower, and those pieces fell to the North, causing the reported gash in the South face of WTC7. It's just an idea, but I've always wondered how far sideways they could have fallen and what they would have hit.

ETA: I guess debris from the second plane crash could have hit WTC7 as well. It would have had farther to go, but at least it was travelling in the right direction.

Dr Adequate
5th May 2006, 09:52 AM
In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building. Finally!

At last you're beginning to understand!

And all it took was a few seconds LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL FRIGGIN' EVIDENCE.

Now all you have to do is admit to yourself that the reason the top of the tower fell was because the floors below it had been taken out by an aeroplane, and you're cured.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 10:01 AM
Thanks for your hard work, Here are my suggestions and fixes:


Page 29, Bottom picture: I get no picture, says I need a plugin. Not sure if this is a concern or not. This pops up a few more times, pictures requiring some sort of plugin. I would consider changing them all to a single format.

Thanks! You prompted me to actually run spell check, and it found lots of typos. Serves me right for doing all this from the comfy couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse, about 7 feet from the monitor.

I'll check the graphics. I had resized evey pic and thought they were all jpegs, but I guess not.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 10:09 AM
Can anyone confirm that he (Bermas) is actually saying "The people are secondary?" I've listened a few times and isn't perfectly clear. Not that it would be surprising – it's exactly the kind of thing they say. But I wanted to slip that quote into my new critique, and I don't want to get it wrong.

I'm not sure if it's confirmation, but that's certainly how I heard it. I agree, it isn't easy to make out, but it seems as if he's saying the issue of the what happened to the people is secondary.

Gravy
5th May 2006, 10:14 AM
There's a difference between taking this picture, http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg, and jumping the gun and saying "FEMA manipulated their facts!", and looking at it objectively. It doesn't particularly convince me as to when it was taken and where the smoke exactly comes from, but I'm sure it wasn't the only piece of evidence FEMA had in their hands to make their investigation. I was just saying this specific piece of evidence is insufficient to make ANY conclusion.;)

Actually, we can say some things for sure from that photo. See the glare on the buildings and glass, and how the shadows fall? The sun is in the southwest. It's late in the afternoon. And we know that rubble was not smoking like that in front of WTC 7 at that time. Yes, you'd need to see one of the hundreds of other images taken at that time to confirm that, but that's easily done.

Rather than do that, geggy ASSUMES (who knows why?) that FEMA is being DECEPTIVE, as if no one is going to check their work, and he posts his triumphant discovery here.

geggy, you say you do your homework. Maybe that's true. But you get it wrong every single time. What does that tell you?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm done trying to edumacate geggy. I can't recall a single time that one of his "proofs" has been correct, and he shows no signs of learning ANYTHING from his mistakes. Just pathetic.

WildCat
5th May 2006, 10:15 AM
I have a question, maybe someone here is familiar with the videos and already knows this. In some of the videos of the towers collapsing, I have seen these tall skinny pieces left sticking up after the rubble pile passes, and these pieces then start to tip over since they're no longer supported sideways. I've thought that these pieces were sections of the steel core columns that were left behind. I would like to check out the idea that this could have been the North Tower, and those pieces fell to the North, causing the reported gash in the South face of WTC7. It's just an idea, but I've always wondered how far sideways they could have fallen and what they would have hit.
There's some great photos here (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/) showing the site on Sept. 13, 2001. Enormous pieces of the WTC were thrown quite a ways away, as you can see.

60hzxtl
5th May 2006, 10:38 AM
There's some great photos showing the site on Sept. 13, 2001. Enormous pieces of the WTC were thrown quite a ways away, as you can see.

and not to forget that there is a 7 plus story void UNDER the WTC, going down to the PATH trains, making a lot of the debris that fell straight down not apparent, its compressed below the street level. I worked across the street beginging the first Sunday after, and I saw an 8 - 12 story pile of smoking rubble - rubble that smoked until at least December.

Hagrok
5th May 2006, 10:41 AM
There's some great photos here (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/) showing the site on Sept. 13, 2001. Enormous pieces of the WTC were thrown quite a ways away, as you can see.
I honestly don't see how any thinking human being could see those pictures and say "controlled demolition".

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 10:58 AM
Actually, we can say some things for sure from that photo. See the glare on the buildings and glass, and how the shadows fall? The sun is in the southwest. It's late in the afternoon.

I stand corrected. Judging by the direction of the sun, and comparing it to pictures taken during the collapse, this picture:http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg, could not have been taken between 10:08 and 10:28 AM on sept 11.

Thanks Gravy.

geggy
5th May 2006, 11:33 AM
Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

LOOK AND COMPARE

As you can see the squibs ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building free fall into the ground.

http://www.explosive911analysis.com/B24.jpg

As you can see the squibs ejecting one at a time 1-2 seconds apart starting from top to down.


http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc5.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc6.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc7.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc8.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc9.jpg

WildCat
5th May 2006, 11:38 AM
I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...
Is this an admission that the collapse of the WTC towers does not look like a controlled demolition?

NobbyNobbs
5th May 2006, 11:40 AM
Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

As you can see the squibs ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building free fall into the ground.



As you can see the squibs ejecting one at a time 1-2 seconds apart starting from top to down.




A quick lesson in logic:

The above is what a controlled demolition looks like.
The WTC does not look like this.
Ergo, the WTC was not a controlled demolition.

You've done a great job providing the evidence for this line of logic, Geggy. I'm only too happy to complete the thought for you. Nice job.

kookbreaker
5th May 2006, 11:45 AM
Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...


What the heck is this 'different way'?


LOOK AND COMPARE


Been there, done that, tossed the looser.


As you can see the squibs ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building free fall into the ground.


1) The building will not free fall.
2) The building is not yet falling.


As you can see the squibs ejecting one at a time 1-2 seconds apart starting from top to down.


Actually, it looks like only one squib shown over multiple frames.

Also:

1) The building is already falling. Why the need for more explosives?
2) Still looks nothing like the charges shown on the first picture.

You lose, looser.

geggy
5th May 2006, 11:47 AM
Controlled demotlition...timed demolition...whatever you want to call it...

CurtC
5th May 2006, 11:55 AM
By the way, there have been questions asked at the LC forum recently, about why there are no structural engineers who dispute that fires could have caused the collapses, and it seems to be getting some attention.

In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3543&st=30&#entry4146159), Sun Zoo says:What else do you want - a professionally liscenced practicing structural engineer, right?

I'll have one within days I believe, a week max.

I'm a headhunter. In the Consulting Engineering world in the USA (though I don't talk to people, usually, about anything 9/11 in the course of conducting business). It's my job it's what I do.

There MUST be brave ones out there now ready to look at this information, I'll start making more calls..

Call it the Loose Change Contingency Search Assignment.

We'll get one, from New York City. That's where I'll find him. A high rise pro struct eng, who upon making his own investigation and examination, fully believes in 9/11 truth as we are presenting it, to certify, that the official story is utterly absurd nonsense and a great Big Lie, of the farthest reaching proportions and significance..
I am waiting with bated breath to see where this leads.

In the thread Wanted: Structural Engineer With Cajones, anybody got a line on this? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3607), josephborden's interest was piqued by the question, so is starting this thread to find any structural engineers that he couldn't find in his searching.

In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3610&st=0&#entry4145024), jenabell jumps in with both feet on the Van Romero subject, the New Mexico structural expert who claims to have been misquoted immediately after 9/11, and now says that there is no evidence for explosives. jenabell makes the case that he was bought and paid for, so to speak.

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 11:56 AM
i wonder if any of the loosers believe in "The montauk project" thats personally my favorite conspiracy theory. it deals with time travel, aliens, nazi's, a bigfoot type creature. oh man, its fantastic. hours of entertainment.

rwguinn
5th May 2006, 11:59 AM
In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3610&st=0&#entry4145024), jenabell jumps in with both feet on the Van Romero subject, the New Mexico structural expert who claims to have been misquoted immediately after 9/11, and now says that there is no evidence for explosives. jenabell makes the case that he was bought and paid for, so to speak.

we went through this back on like page 3 of this circular thread.
It was very early in the thread. I am NOT going back to look for it.
I love latecomers who haven't bothered to look at what's been done already here...

DavidJames
5th May 2006, 12:02 PM
geggy:
You missed my questions.
The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below.
How much weight was there pushing down. How much weight would have been necessary, show your work.
If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.

What evidence, other then a video, do you have that that there was no pause and how much of a pause should there have been, please provide, from a structural engineering perspective the analysis which supports your conclusion.

Belz...
5th May 2006, 12:04 PM
I'm just anticipating what geggy's next question would be.
When the planes initially hit, there was some flaming wreckage ejected from the impact and falling out the holes after.
But at what point in the timeline was the picture taken?

No idea, really.

kookbreaker
5th May 2006, 12:06 PM
Controlled demotlition...timed demolition...whatever you want to call it...

Either way, the WTC was nothing of the sort.

Dr Adequate
5th May 2006, 12:13 PM
Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing... But this is not possible. Consider the following:

(1) We know the immediate cause of the collapse of the South Tower. It's 'cos the top of the tower fell onto the rest of it.

(2) We know that the immediate cause of this was that the floors below it had been weakened.

(3) We know that those floors were definitely weakened by (a) a plane crash (b) an aviation fuel fire.

(4) We know that there cannot have been any explosives on those floors just before the tower collapsed because they would have been ignited in the fire.

Do you see? In order for explosives to cause the collapse which we can all see on the video, they would have to be planted exactly where the plane hit, and they would have to survive the impact and ensuing fire.

The first would just require the world's most acurate plane crash ever (your "squibs" are ejected exactly at the bottom of the hole made by the plane --- coincidence?)

But the second is downright impossible. There can't have been any explosives on the relevant floors any more than there could have been a team of men with steel-cutting equipment.

In the absence of any other explanation, I suggest that the relevant floors were weakened by a plane crashing into them. WE CAN ALL SEE THE HUGE HOLE IN THE BUILDING, DAMMIT!

Hellbound
5th May 2006, 12:14 PM
WE CAN ALL SEE THE HUGE HOLE IN THE BUILDING, DAMMIT!

Holograms, duh.

:D

I still like my four independant conspiracies theory.

Or my malfunctioning anti-gravity device theory.

They're at least internally consistent.

WildCat
5th May 2006, 12:16 PM
Controlled demotlition...timed demolition...whatever you want to call it...
And the WTC collapse looked nothing like it, no matter what you call it.

pgwenthold
5th May 2006, 12:20 PM
Is this an admission that the collapse of the WTC towers does not look like a controlled demolition?

This has been my push in the last couple of days.

In fact, it has progressed more or less as would be expected for a disingenious argument. Once again I state that it is clear that geggy is not just someone "who has honest questions."

Consider the line of argument:

CT: The falling of the WTC looked like controlled demolition. Therefore, it was a conspiracy. Here's why it couldn't have fallen on its own. Here's all the evidence for the conspiracy.
JREFers: Most of this evidence doesn't mean what you think it means, in the best case, and, in the worst case, is all-to-often fabricated whole cloth.

[continue for 50 pages]

Pablo (that's me): Um, I have a question. The original claim is that the buildings falling looked like a controlled demolition. I just watched the video the tower falling, and it doesn't look like a controlled demolition at all.

We see pics and video of controlled demolitions that look nothing like the towers falling.

CT: The conspiracy used unorthodox methods to disguise the fact that it was a controlled demolition.

IOW, it doesn't actually look like a controlled demolition.

So we've come full circle:

[from]
It looked like a controlled demolition, therefore it was a conspiracy.

[to]
It was a conspiracy, so it didn't look like a controlled demolition.

It's failsafe. Doesn't matter how it looked, it was a conspiracy either way.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 12:21 PM
Holograms, duh.


I'm over at the LC forums debating with someone about the "missing" people on Flight 77. After lengthy argument, the Loosers have convinced me. I've come to the conclusion that after leaving the airport, government agents forced Flight 77 to land, the people were taken off of it, and were loaded onto a flying object SHAPED IDENTICALLY to a 757 which was cleverly constructed to have exactly the same mass, energy, and aerodynamic properties as an actual 757.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, skeptics.

Edit: spelling

Hellbound
5th May 2006, 12:28 PM
I'm over at the LC forums debating with someone about the "missing" people on Flight 77. After lengthy argument, the Loosers have convinced me. I've come to the conclusion that after leaving the airport, government agents forced Flight 77 to land, the people were taken off of it, and were loaded onto a flying object SHAPED IDENTICALLY to a 757 which was cleverly constructed to have exactly the same mass, energy, and aerodynamic properties as an actual 757.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, skeptics.

Edit: spelling

DUDE!!!

That explains something that's been bothering me for a while now.

Last week, I got home, and realized that someone had replaced every single thing in my house with an exact replica!

Spoooooky....I must be getting close.

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 12:30 PM
I'm over at the LC forums debating with someone about the "missing" people on Flight 77. After lengthy argument, the Loosers have convinced me. I've come to the conclusion that after leaving the airport, government agents forced Flight 77 to land, the people were taken off of it, and were loaded onto a flying object SHAPED IDENTICALLY to a 757 which was cleverly constructed to have exactly the same mass, energy, and aerodynamic properties as an actual 757.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, skeptics.

Edit: spelling

nice, its easier that way

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 12:32 PM
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

heres a guy who not only saw the plane hit the pentagon, he took photos of the site and has all his phone numbers and e-mail listed. maybe we should contact this guy, since he is an eyewitness and has the photos to prove it.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 12:40 PM
Jeebus. It's the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea over there (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3617).

Regnad Kcin
5th May 2006, 12:46 PM
i wonder if any of the loosers believe in "The montauk project" thats personally my favorite conspiracy theory. it deals with time travel, aliens, nazi's, a bigfoot type creature. oh man, its fantastic. hours of entertainment.How 'bout The Philadelphia Experiment (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm)?

dubfan
5th May 2006, 12:49 PM
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

heres a guy who not only saw the plane hit the pentagon, he took photos of the site and has all his phone numbers and e-mail listed. maybe we should contact this guy, since he is an eyewitness and has the photos to prove it.

Definitely.

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 12:52 PM
How 'bout The Philadelphia Experiment (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq21-1.htm)?

yeah, they're both connected stories. and man are they entertaining.

chipmunk stew
5th May 2006, 12:52 PM
This has been my push in the last couple of days.

In fact, it has progressed more or less as would be expected for a disingenious argument. Once again I state that it is clear that geggy is not just someone "who has honest questions."

Consider the line of argument:

CT: The falling of the WTC looked like controlled demolition. Therefore, it was a conspiracy. Here's why it couldn't have fallen on its own. Here's all the evidence for the conspiracy.
JREFers: Most of this evidence doesn't mean what you think it means, in the best case, and, in the worst case, is all-to-often fabricated whole cloth.

[continue for 50 pages]

Pablo (that's me): Um, I have a question. The original claim is that the buildings falling looked like a controlled demolition. I just watched the video the tower falling, and it doesn't look like a controlled demolition at all.

We see pics and video of controlled demolitions that look nothing like the towers falling.

CT: The conspiracy used unorthodox methods to disguise the fact that it was a controlled demolition.

IOW, it doesn't actually look like a controlled demolition.

So we've come full circle:

[from]
It looked like a controlled demolition, therefore it was a conspiracy.

[to]
It was a conspiracy, so it didn't look like a controlled demolition.

It's failsafe. Doesn't matter how it looked, it was a conspiracy either way.Circular arguments are a favorite and perfectly valid debate tactic in the mind of the CT.

EagleEye
5th May 2006, 01:13 PM
One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp).One of the first claims in the video is that people used their advanced knowledge of the attacks to profit on United. Looks like that claim is false.

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Uh... sir... the 9/11 commission only proved that the trading wasn't done by anyone tied to al Qaeda. Isn't that the POINT? US-based interests doing the trading only serves to support the conspiracy theory.

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 01:17 PM
i sent that guy who saw the plane hitting the pentagon an e-mail asking if he can explain what he saw. i also advised him about having his contact info on that webpage as the loosers will harrass him. if i get a response i'll post it.

WildCat
5th May 2006, 01:35 PM
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

heres a guy who not only saw the plane hit the pentagon, he took photos of the site and has all his phone numbers and e-mail listed. maybe we should contact this guy, since he is an eyewitness and has the photos to prove it.
This pic (http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010013.JPG), taken almost immediately after impact, shows all you need to know the stupidity of the missile theory. Unless there's a missile that starts fires the wingspan of a 757.

Manny
5th May 2006, 01:43 PM
This pic (http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010013.JPG), taken almost immediately after impact, shows all you need to know the stupidity of the missile theory. Unless there's a missile that starts fires the wingspan of a 757.You're ignoring the napalm that the conspirators spread across the wall of the Pentagon at the same time they were sneaking in those pesky aircraft parts.

Shrinker
5th May 2006, 01:44 PM
Uh... sir... the 9/11 commission only proved that the trading wasn't done by anyone tied to al Qaeda. Isn't that the POINT? US-based interests doing the trading only serves to support the conspiracy theory.

Not so. Not only did the investigators rule out an Al-Qaeda link, they found out enough to show the trades weren't suspicious at all. One bunch of put options was bought by someone who also bought shares in American. So as well as winning big-time, they also lost big-time. Not consistent with somebody in the know...

The second spike in trades was caused by a bunch of individual traders acting on a newletter tip. Unless that newsletter was the Super Secret Conspirators Trading Gazette, it looks pretty innocent.

dubfan
5th May 2006, 01:50 PM
Not to get us off track here, but has anyone addressed the question of the color of the smoke -- note that in both the WTC and Pentagon attacks you have a large quantity of black smoke, which would be consistent with a lot of burning Jet-A. Would a missile strike necessarily cause so much black smoke?

Not that we need any more nails for the coffin containing the-Pentagon-was-hit-by-a-missile fantasy... just wondering aloud.

Ramooone
5th May 2006, 02:08 PM
Does anyone else laugh their ass off when someone says that the dust from the WTC was a pyroclastic flow. man, everytime i see that i laugh.

it may have looked like a pyroclastic flow, but it certaintly was not, as people and manhattan were not melted in the extreme heat and gas of a pyroclastic flow. Where else is the dust supposed to go when a building collapses!!!

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 02:24 PM
I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

If I understand your logic, the WTC collapses, wich looked like controlled demolitions to you, really were controlled demolitions made to look like structural failings, AKA collapses?:confused: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:

Can't you see how you're distorting everything?

Shrinker
5th May 2006, 02:27 PM
the video of what I was talking about when the north tower shook before it came down indicating that bombs may have been implanted in the basement of the tower. I'm pretty sure it's legitmate because as the trembling started, you can see the shifting of the smoke.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

Hey Mr Degree in Imaging Technology, did your tutors teach you about what happens when your camera shakes? In case they didn't: when the camera shakes, it kinda look like the objects you're photographing are shaking. Amazing huh?

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 02:31 PM
This pic (http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010013.JPG), taken almost immediately after impact, shows all you need to know the stupidity of the missile theory. Unless there's a missile that starts fires the wingspan of a 757.

The person's black bag on the left looks suspicious, any thoughts on it geggy?

aggle-rithm
5th May 2006, 03:09 PM
Hey Mr Degree in Imaging Technology, did your tutors teach you about what happens when your camera shakes? In case they didn't: when the camera shakes, it kinda look like the objects you're photographing are shaking. Amazing huh?


Wait a minute....

You mean the Enterprise bridge wasn't REALLY shaking when it was hit by photon torpedoes?!?

I gotta sit down...

aggle-rithm
5th May 2006, 03:11 PM
The person's black bag on the left looks suspicious, any thoughts on it geggy?

And do you see the strap, the way it hangs down unnaturally? A REAL black bag wouldn't do that! ;)

dubfan
5th May 2006, 03:14 PM
The person's black bag on the left looks suspicious, any thoughts on it geggy?

Handbag nuke.

shuize
5th May 2006, 05:53 PM
I read the recent post regarding some at LC finally considering their lack of support among structural engineers.

Has anyone else found this line of argument successful?

I'm trying to work my position down into a short one- or two-line response so as to be able to respond aggressively when certain CT nutters start their nonsense without getting drawn into a never ending game of move the goal posts that will only give the CTers a platform and maybe look like they actually know something to others sitting around the table.

I'm thinking of something like this:

"Not one licensed structural engineer in the entire world agrees with your kooky 'inside job' conspiracy theory."

But I'm open to other suggestions. What facts or line of reasoning seems most successful in bringing people back from the edge? Or is it, as I suspect, always a point by point by point process?

geggy
5th May 2006, 06:25 PM
I'm thinking of something like this:

"Not one licensed structural engineer in the entire world agrees with your kooky 'inside job' conspiracy theory."

:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

DavidJames
5th May 2006, 06:32 PM
:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html
One alleged letter from structural engineer who isn't named and another claimed structural engineer who in the quotes identifies themselves as a civil engineer.

Pathetic

By the way, are you ever going answer me:


The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below.

How much weight was there pushing down. How much weight would have been necessary, show your work.

If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.

What evidence, other then a video, do you have that that there was no pause and how much of a pause should there have been, please provide, from a structural engineering perspective the analysis which supports your conclusion.

rwguinn
5th May 2006, 06:54 PM
:mad::rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission:mad:

Ok, let's see their licenses. Mine is Colorado PE 30240
and "Dr Jones" is a hack

Gravy
5th May 2006, 07:03 PM
I'm over at the LC forums debating with someone about the "missing" people on Flight 77. After lengthy argument, the Loosers have convinced me. I've come to the conclusion that after leaving the airport, government agents forced Flight 77 to land, the people were taken off of it, and were loaded onto a flying object SHAPED IDENTICALLY to a 757 which was cleverly constructed to have exactly the same mass, energy, and aerodynamic properties as an actual 757.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, skeptics.

:cool: :cool: I'd LOVE to see their timeline for that.

Arkan_Wolfshade
5th May 2006, 07:51 PM
:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

pg. 288

... Through vast experience they know, fairly quickly, which new ideas stand a chance of succeeding and which are obviously wrong. Newcomers from other fields, who typically dive in with both feet without the requisite training and experience, proceed to generate new ideas that they think - because of their success in their own field - will be revolutionary. Instead, they are usually greeted with disdain (or, more typically, simply ignored) by the professionals in the field. This is not because (as they usually think is the reason) insiders don't like outsiders (or that all revolutionaries are persecuted or ignored), but because in most cases those ideas were considered years or decades before and rejected for perfectly legitimate reasons.

- Why People Believe Weird Things Michael Shermer

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 09:37 PM
Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

Hmmm, geggy has been gone a while. Let's bet he's coming back with the same old anti-Bush rhetoric and links to the same old CT sites... If he does, I want a kitty pic.:D

Somebody owes me a kitten pic.:D

WildCat
5th May 2006, 09:44 PM
Somebody owes me a kitten pic.:D
My kitten, before he grew into the big cat w/ saber teeth you see in my avatar. :D

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/payton07.jpg

Pardalis
5th May 2006, 09:53 PM
I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

If I understand your logic, the WTC collapses, wich looked like controlled demolitions to you, really were controlled demolitions made to look like structural failings, AKA collapses?:confused: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:

Can't you see how you're distorting everything?

geggy, can you at least acknowledge that your logic makes no sense what so ever? That you are so adamant at believing that there is a conspiracy, you even contradict your very own claims? For crying out loud, at least acknowledge it!

Admitting one has been wrong isn't going to make you less of a man, mistakes and errors are what makes us learn, it's part of the process.

Kevin_Lowe
6th May 2006, 03:57 AM
An update on the Loosers, it looks like they'be block-banned my general IP address. Too bad for anyone else from my ISP wanting to check out the Loose Change forums. ;)

I guess I scared the poor little preciouses.

Needless to say, there are ways and means. I won't go into detail because I know the Loosers read this thread. But I'll be right back there... if I'm not back already. :)

Gravy
6th May 2006, 04:11 AM
An update on the Loosers, it looks like they'be block-banned my general IP address. Too bad for anyone else from my ISP wanting to check out the Loose Change forums. ;)

I guess I scared the poor little preciouses.

Needless to say, there are ways and means. I won't go into detail because I know the Loosers read this thread. But I'll be right back there... if I'm not back already. :)
Bwahahaha! I've posting there as "Zor" for a while now, and can't seem to get myself banned no matter how stupid my comments are.

dissonance
6th May 2006, 04:19 AM
Ha, after several days with no resonse to the posting of Ben Chertoff's email explaining he is not related to Micheal Chertoff, and what his mother really said ('he might be a cousin', not 'he is a cousin'), one of the Loosers has finally come up with a rebuttle:

Yeh, right...

Man, I was hoping the first come back would at least include some sort of paranoid ranting about payoffs and government coverups.

Kevin_Lowe
6th May 2006, 04:29 AM
Gravy, that's mean. I bet you aren't Zor at all, you're just trying to get poor Zor banned by saying you are Zor.

dubfan
6th May 2006, 07:10 AM
geggy, can you at least acknowledge that your logic makes no sense what so ever? That you are so adamant at believing that there is a conspiracy, you even contradict your very own claims? For crying out loud, at least acknowledge it!

Admitting one has been wrong isn't going to make you less of a man, mistakes and errors are what makes us learn, it's part of the process.

Forget it, you're wasting your time. Someone earlier in the thread had it right -- this is a religion for these people.

The "globalists", "neocons", and "Bush" are the unholy trinity, Alex Jones is God, and Dylan Avery is his prophet.

Arguing with them is JUST like arguing with a religious fundamentalist. They resort to the same arguments, the same defenses, and they have the same emotional attachments to their beliefs. They're even going thru sectarian strife and the process of sorting out which of their holy scriptures (CT websites) are canon, and which are heretical.

CurtC
6th May 2006, 07:22 AM
An update on the Loosers, it looks like they'be block-banned my general IP address.Are you sure? That seems like something that would be harder to do and less effective. I bet they are just using the cookie stored on your browser to identify you. Delete the cookie and try again.

Gravy
6th May 2006, 07:31 AM
Gravy, that's mean. I bet you aren't Zor at all, you're just trying to get poor Zor banned by saying you are Zor.
I was joking. I'm sure you can't have a duplicate screen name. Anyway, my imagination isn't good enough to come up with the stuff he does. It doesn't hurt to put the idea out there though. They're so paranoid, they may ban him as a precaution.

senorpogo
6th May 2006, 07:55 AM
:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

You have to believe a "Dr. Jones" from an unnamed university in Texas!

Granted, if I were going to fabricate evidence, I'd cite someone named Jones or Smith rather than Perkowski or Manumaleuna. And I'd say they're from a university in a large geographic area - like Texas or California - rather than Rhode Island or Wichita. That way, if someone tries to disprove the evidence, they have to do extensive research. Even then, with a name like Jones and a 100+ universities in Texas, they very well may find a structural engineer named Jones.

edit: My mistake. I noticed now that it was an email to Jones. So we have a completely unnamed structural engineer from somewhere in Texas. That makes it even less believable.

senorpogo
6th May 2006, 08:20 AM
:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

It's also worth noting that, while the unnamed structural engineers in the paper raise doubts about the official story of the collapse, nowhere do they explicitly say that they believe it was a contorlled demolition.

Looser's are known to edit quotes from experts in such a way as to make it appear that they too believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition. (The Bill Manning quotes from Fire Engineering (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1548185#post1548185)come to mind.) In reality, these quoted experts will often have legitimate concerns over the specific findings of government investigations in regards to actual engineering and building safety. Why exactly did the towers fail? What does this tell us about the way we construct buildings? Was the fireproofing in the building adequate? How can we make our buildings in a safer way to avoid such in the future accidents? It's only natural that there would be some legitimate discussion about these things.

Without seeing the entirity of the emails by these supposed structural engineers, there's no way to know exactly what they question about the official investigation.

CptColumbo
6th May 2006, 08:40 AM
Ha, after several days with no resonse to the posting of Ben Chertoff's email explaining he is not related to Micheal Chertoff, and what his mother really said ('he might be a cousin', not 'he is a cousin'), one of the Loosers has finally come up with a rebuttle:



Man, I was hoping the first come back would at least include some sort of paranoid ranting about payoffs and government coverups.
They, of course, won't look into it or double-check the data through another source.
I'm not sure if they're calling Chertoff a "shill" or CurtC. Of course, the person who first reported it is a pillar of integrity.

Edited for spelling.

CptColumbo
6th May 2006, 08:45 AM
It's also worth noting that, while the unnamed structural engineer's in the paper raise doubts about the official story of the collapse, nowhere do they explicitly say that they believe it was a contorlled demolition.

Looser's are known to edit quotes from experts in such a way as to make it appear that they too believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition. (The Bill Manning quotes from Fire Engineering (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1548185#post1548185)come to mind.) In reality, these quoted experts will often have legitimate concerns over the specific findings of government investigations in regards to actual engineering and building safety. Why exactly did the towers fail? What does this tell us about the way we construct buildings? Was the fireproofing in the building adequate? How can we make our buildings in a safer way to avoid such in the future accidents? It's only natural that there would be some legitimate discussion about these things.

Without seeing the entirity of the emails by these supposed structural engineers, there's no way to know exactly what they question about the official investigation.
The sad part is that the CT movement might actually be hurting any actual investigation. By fabricating evidence, like Mark Hoffman or Piltdown Man, they are setting any actual investigation years back, because the investigators have to weed out what was made up and what is real.

geggy
6th May 2006, 09:33 AM
Kevin Lowe...
You must be really proud of yourself for getting banned from the LC boards. Probably one of your most defining moments of your lifetime on the net, eh? I think this will surprise you, esp coming from me...I think it's lame that you were banned from the board, as well, unless you were bombarding them with insults and wiseass cracks, then it's probably understandable why ya got banned. I sure as heck wouldn't ban you if you actually brought something to the table for everyone to discuss.

Soooo...say what subject surrounding sept 11 you were discussin that got you banned? Pls don't tell me it had something to do with the pentagon. I'm not a fan of that one, unless it had to do with the standdown of NORAD, then I can discuss. I'm tryin to pull the people into discussin on that issue but most have backed away.

I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...

Davidjames...sorry for the delay. I will come back later.

WildCat
6th May 2006, 09:39 AM
Kevin Lowe...
You must be really proud of yourself for getting banned from the LC boards. Probably one of your most defining moments of your lifetime on the net, eh? I think this will surprise you, esp coming from me...I think it's lame that you were banned from the board, as well, unless you were bombarding them with insults and wiseass cracks, then it's probably understandable why ya got banned. I sure as heck wouldn't ban you if you actually brought something to the table for everyone to discuss.

Soooo...say what subject surrounding sept 11 you were discussin that got you banned? Pls don't tell me it had something to do with the pentagon. I'm not a fan of that one, unless it had to do with the standdown of NORAD, then I can discuss. I'm tryin to pull the people into discussin on that issue but most have backed away.

I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...

Davidjames...sorry for the delay. I will come back later.
What does it tell you when the premier forum for discussing the 9/11 CT
theory bans all those who dare post evidence that the collapses went down just the way the official version said they did?

How many of your "facts" you posted here turned out to be true geggy?

How many lies of the 9/11 "truth" movement have you parroted back to us here, only to be shown for the lies they are?

And yet you cling to your precious conspiracy theory w/ religious fervor.
Even after you admitted that the WTC collapses did not look like a controlled demolition!

60hzxtl
6th May 2006, 09:45 AM
The sad part is that the CT movement might actually be hurting any actual investigation. By fabricating evidence, like Mark Hoffman or Piltdown Man, they are setting any actual investigation years back, because the investigators have to weed out what was made up and what is real.


But CT'ers are not about a conclusion. ("Like man, we're only asking questions an stuff")

They want to chase imaginary bad guys, shadows and puukas. (see: Harvey)

You NEVER catch them, you just keep chasing.

They want an issue, they don't WANT answers.

senorpogo
6th May 2006, 10:05 AM
But CT'ers are not about a conclusion. ("Like man, we're only asking questions an stuff").

That's what I hate the most about the CTs.

They make assertions and claims. People thendisprove, discredit, and debunk them through hard work and a lot of research. Then, the CTs provide other evidence. Again, hard work and research disproves that. The cycle repeats until the CTs fall back to the "we're just asking questions" position.

After people go through all the hard work to show that their claims are bogus, CTs then claim that it was never about the claims themselves. It doesn't matter that all those claims were completely wrong. Nope, what was important was that they were "questioning things".

It is *#@!ing infuriating. It's intellectually dishonest. It's completely cowardly.

60hzxtl
6th May 2006, 10:15 AM
That's what I hate the most about the CTs.

They make assertions and claims. People thendisprove, discredit, and debunk them through hard work and a lot of research. Then, the CTs provide other evidence. Again, hard work and research disproves that. The cycle repeats until the CTs fall back to the "we're just asking questions" position.

It is *#@!ing infuriating. It's intellectually dishonest. It's completely cowardly.

That's why they say arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still_____ (insert un-pc term for I.Q. under 90.)

senorpogo
6th May 2006, 10:17 AM
That's why they say arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still_____ (insert un-pc term for I.Q. under 90.)

Problem with the 9/11 CT crowd is that they pull the same stuff off the internet.

Regnad Kcin
6th May 2006, 10:23 AM
...I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...Nonsense.

senorpogo
6th May 2006, 10:26 AM
I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...


Considering that pretty much all of your (and the CT crowd's) evidence has been proven false or intentionally misleading, how can you honestly believe that this one bit of evidence is legit?

dubfan
6th May 2006, 10:35 AM
Sorry, slightly OT here....

I've noticed the CTs are calling for a "new investigation" (Dylan & Korey & Jason are sporting "Invesitgate 9-11!" T-shirts), and they're demanding that Pentagon video and WTC video & photos be released, etc.

Now, for the love of God's green earth, does anyone here think that these guys are going to BELIEVE any of that evidence once it's released?

They'll look at video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon and we'll be in for another round of armchair photogrammetry and discussions of specular highlights and pods and missiles and all the other crap that's plagued the discussions of the two WTC planes.

They're also over there alternately high-fiving each other and standing around with puzzled looks after their holding company bought the WTC blueprints from the Port Authority (they want to look for evidence of explosive charges, you see). They're puzzled -- but the Port Authority is in on it! Why would they agree to sell us the blueprints!

And what, pray tell, are they gonna do, when they examine the blueprints and they find there are no thermite charges, no wiring for detonators, nor anything of the sort. Why -- it's part of the conspiracy! The Port Authority sold us doctored blueprints!

WildCat
6th May 2006, 10:39 AM
BTW dubfan, nice work in this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3343&st=0). Only a matter of time before they ban you for the offense of thinking critically.

senorpogo
6th May 2006, 10:43 AM
Sorry, slightly OT here....

I've noticed the CTs are calling for a "new investigation" (Dylan & Korey & Jason are sporting "Invesitgate 9-11!" T-shirts), and they're demanding that Pentagon video and WTC video & photos be released, etc.

Now, for the love of God's green earth, does anyone here think that these guys are going to BELIEVE any of that evidence once it's released?

They'll look at video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon and we'll be in for another round of armchair photogrammetry and discussions of specular highlights and pods and missiles and all the other crap that's plagued the discussions of the two WTC planes.

They're also over there alternately high-fiving each other and standing around with puzzled looks after their holding company bought the WTC blueprints from the Port Authority (they want to look for evidence of explosive charges, you see). They're puzzled -- but the Port Authority is in on it! Why would they agree to sell us the blueprints!

And what, pray tell, are they gonna do, when they examine the blueprints and they find there are no thermite charges, no wiring for detonators, nor anything of the sort. Why -- it's part of the conspiracy! The Port Authority sold us doctored blueprints!

It's a point that has been made previously in this thread. When arguing with one of these guys (or anyone on any topic really), it's often worthwhile to ask at the very beginning of the debate - what will I have to show you to convince you that you're position is incorrect?

If most of the Loosers were honest, they'd say - nothing. Then we could save some time.

geggy
6th May 2006, 10:44 AM
That's why they say arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still_____ (insert un-pc term for I.Q. under 90.)

I find it amusing that you all think of this as a boxing match. I'm not trying to win at anything, just bringin my perspectives of sept 11 to the table for you to think about, is all.

Btw, my IQ is not below 90 if that is what your assumption is, it's actually much higher.

Some of you misunderstood. I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project, I'm saying it was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling as if the structure of the building was failing.

60hzxtl
6th May 2006, 10:47 AM
Which is why I say the best thing to do is to take their VERY "documentary" made from media clips, and re-narrate it. Nothing on their film belongs to them. (I made it thru 1 hr. and quit in disgust and contempt.) Its stock footage, with their crap narration "You can clearly see the POD here!!" Follow it with your own narrator saying "Uh, Dylan, that's a shadow, from the engine, because even on 9/11, the sunlight was coming from the East. We'll let you call it a POD if you can tell us where the engine shadow went to."

"The fine white dust in the lobby is the sign of HIGH EXPLOSIVES!!!!"

"Uh, no Dylan, it just MIGHT be from the elevators that fell RIGHT BEHIND the reception area, and pushed the crap out of the elevator shafts - and as far as the elevator shafts being 'air tight' that would make them pneumatic tubes. . . "

It could be knocked off in a week, could be made in time for their big push this coming 9/11,

Mock them with their own narration.

DavidJames
6th May 2006, 10:49 AM
I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. As already stated, the link you provided identified 1 ONE (ONE), alleged structural engineer.

I do believe they're legit.
Of course you believe they are legit, because you do not think critically. You are a conspiracy nut, at one point you said you didn't want to be considered a CT, well until you actually start to think critically, you are a CT

Some engineers just don't want to give out their names Some? Excuse me but NONE have given out their names.

60hzxtl
6th May 2006, 10:56 AM
I find it amusing that you all think of this as a boxing match. I'm not trying to win at anything, just bringin my perspectives of sept 11 to the table for you to think about, is all.

Btw, my IQ is not below 90 if that is what your assumption is, it's actually much higher.




You miss the point of the comment, which is not original.

The point is why bother to prove anything to someone who just wants the issue.

When you say stuff that equals 'it looks just like a controlled demolition except when it doesn't, because its unique and different,' my head hurts because you think that means something.


I'd say you would think this was "Very Unique" but I doubt you'd get the
joke.

9/11 was just like any other day, except for those pesky planes flyin' in there.

dubfan
6th May 2006, 10:57 AM
BTW dubfan, nice work in this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3343&st=0). Only a matter of time before they ban you for the offense of thinking critically.

Thanks. I'm surprised I've lasted this long. I think it's mostly kids over there, and I think they mean well. It's hard to get too angry at them. I'm disappointed in them that they don't think more clearly, and I'm starting to get REALLY angry at the government, because it's their own actions that have created the fertile soil for this crap to grow, but the people I'm most pissed off about are Dylan Avery & Co. These guys are frauds, pure and simple, and they have no idea how destructive they are.