Loose Change

[senorpogo]

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.

Leave your "perspectives" at home. Bring us some facts.
Believing something is one way does not make it so.

[geggy]

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

If I didn't know how to think crticially then I would've swallowed the bs that were laid out in the sept 11 commission report while reading it, which I doubt any of you actually read.

I already caught gravy bs'ing about the osama tape without subtitles so it makes me wonder what other things he had bs'd about.

[chipmunk stew]

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.I actually read a post a few weeks back that said if the FBI does release video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, the poster still won't believe it because in the amount of time that's passed it would have been trivial to create a Hollywood-style fake.

[sat556]

I already caught gravy bs'ing about the osama tape without subtitles so it makes me wonder what other things he had bs'd about.

You caught him did you? I must have missed that. Please give me the post number.
However, what makes you think that video cameras have built in subtitle makers? Subtitles need to be added at some point. You see, people need to say words before they can be added, unless you've got Slyvia Browne on the case ;) There must be a copy of that video without them.

[Dr Adequate]

I already caught gravy bs'ing about the osama tape without subtitles ... No. You are, how can I put this, bs'ing.

The original tape did not have subtitles.

[Gravy]

If I didn't know how to think crticially then I would've swallowed the bs that were laid out in the sept 11 commission report while reading it, which I doubt any of you actually read.

I already caught gravy bs'ing about the osama tape without subtitles so it makes me wonder what other things he had bs'd about.
Of course the original Osama video didn't have subtitles. But when did I say I had a video with OR without subtitles, you blithering idiot? Can you, an "imaging specialist," imagine a video that has subtitles in some parts and not others? And why haven't you watched the video yet? What are you afraid of? It's only Osama the Harmless.

If you think I'm b.s.ing you, do your homework and prove it. I do my homework, and i have proved you to be wrong every single day. Isn't it time you got one on me? Won't it feel good? Give it the old college try, geggy.

Here's a challenge: you go over each of my posts in this thread and pick out the errors. I'll do the same with yours. We tally things up, and pay $10 for each error we've made. The money goes to a worthy 9/11-related cause. Are you with me?

Every day you say at least one thing that's blazingly stupid, it's pointed out to you that it's stupid, and why it's stupid, and yet the next day you come back and do it again. And again. And again. And again. Every single day.

It's not my nature to call people names in public, but geggy, you have made quite a public spectacle of your ignorance and unwillingness to learn from your mistakes.

How do you feel about your approach to all this? Is it working out? Are you comfortable with how it's going? Seeing good progress, are you?

[Gravy]

I actually read a post a few weeks back that said if the FBI does release video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, the poster still won't believe it because in the amount of time that's passed it would have been trivial to create a Hollywood-style fake.
And then there's the guy who said that if video of the Pentagon crash was released, he'd leave the country. Not sure I get the logic there.

[chipmunk stew]

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.I'm starting to feel sorry for them.* You're tearing them to pieces, VWfan!


*(The loyal followers, not the ringleaders! I'd love to give Dylan a kick in the groin...)

[Gravy]

I'm starting to feel sorry for them.* You're tearing them to pieces, VWfan!


*(The loyal followers, not the ringleaders! I'd love to give Dylan a kick in the groin...)
I just read that thread. I'd like to congratulate you on a job well done before you get banned, dubfan!

[WildCat]

Here's (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_North_Hell.jpg) a pic showing WTC 5, WTC 6, and the collapsed WTC 7. Now, the CTers assure us that WTC 7 hardly had any damage at all, it was too far away to have taken a big hit. And yet, this pic clearly shows extensive damage to the building across the sreet (further away from the towers) from WTC 7! How do you explain that?

[DavidJames]

If I didn't know how to think crticially then I would've swallowed the bs that were laid out in the sept 11 commission report while reading itReally, then you will have no problem telling me specifically what in the report was bs, please include details regarding why along with the supporting analysis.

[Gravy]

Here's (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_North_Hell.jpg) a pic showing WTC 5, WTC 6, and the collapsed WTC 7. Now, the CTers assure us that WTC 7 hardly had any damage at all, it was too far away to have taken a big hit. And yet, this pic clearly shows extensive damage to the building across the sreet (further away from the towers) from WTC 7! How do you explain that?

And here's a shot from behind WTC7 (on the left), looking towards the wreckage of 6. The north tower was 200 meters away. Look at the size of that beam in the foreground.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445cfb28cec40.jpg

[senorpogo]

I'm guessing this has been posted somewhere before, but NIST site has some pretty interesting computer simulations (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm).

[TjW]

I actually read a post a few weeks back that said if the FBI does release video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, the poster still won't believe it because in the amount of time that's passed it would have been trivial to create a Hollywood-style fake.

That seems rather pointless. If it was a conspiracy, why not create the Hollywood-style fake beforehand, then release it as security-camera footage -- or better, leak it immediately afterward?

[Shrinker]

That seems rather pointless. If it was a conspiracy, why not create the Hollywood-style fake beforehand, then release it as security-camera footage -- or better, leak it immediately afterward?

It amazes me how all these conspirators always seem to have a visual effects department that's better than Industrial Light & Magic, yet no-one in the relatively small VFX industry has ever heard of it. Where do they get their staff?

[60hzxtl]

It amazes me how all these conspirators always seem to have a visual effects department that's better than Industrial Light & Magic, yet no-one in the relatively small VFX industry has ever heard of it. Where do they get their staff?


There in is the center of the CT'ers - They saw it done on TV once.

"I'm not a controlled demolition expert, but I saw one on TV once. . . "

"I'm not a structural engineer, but I saw one on TV"

"I don't know what a 757 crash looks like, but there was a plane crash on TV and it didn't look like that."

Chief "Saw it in the movies?" Dylan Avery, who, if you find out the genesis of his "Loose Change" He was going to make a FICTIONAL film at first - but instead he made a Duckumentary, and the quacks have never stopped!

[Ramooone]

There in is the center of the CT'ers - They saw it done on TV once.

"I'm not a controlled demolition expert, but I saw one on TV once. . . "

"I'm not a structural engineer, but I saw one on TV"

"I don't know what a 757 crash looks like, but there was a plane crash on TV and it didn't look like that."

Chief "Saw it in the movies?" Dylan Avery, who, if you find out the genesis of his "Loose Change" He was going to make a FICTIONAL film at first - but instead he made a Duckumentary, and the quacks have never stopped!

and thats exactly what happened. he claims that he did research cause he wanted to do a fictional piece, and then found out its not so fictional after all.

in reality, he was sucked into the conspiracy thinking it was truth and has yet to figure this out.

[Ramooone]

hey geggy

i saw a few posts back you were saying something about the norad standdown. now, why does it matter if norad stood down if the buildings were already rigged for demolition!!

[aggle-rithm]

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.


After reading this thread...wow.

They're actually claiming that an airliner CAN'T HIT THE GROUND if it's going faster than 400 mph!

This, coupled with the revelation that skyscrapers are immune to fire, is quite a relief to me. The world is much safer than I thought! Well, it would be except for all the murderous globalists, of course.

[aggle-rithm]

hey geggy

i saw a few posts back you were saying something about the norad standdown. now, why does it matter if norad stood down if the buildings were already rigged for demolition!!

Also, geggy, please provide us with examples of crisis situations in which fighters were scrambled significantly faster that they were on 9/11, and in which they flew at or near top speed to reach their destination. You do have that information, don't you? Of course you do. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to say that they "should have" responded faster.

[Ramooone]

heres a fun game. its called, lets do research how the loosers do it. now all you have to do, is go to their forum, find a quote and use it out of context to prove your point. it's that simple. i'll start:

Deathlok said: millions of people will watch this film thinking that, this was what really happened and will feel sadness and feel for the familys involved! which is wrong, because none of the events actually happened!!

the real quote is i recentlly watched the film United 93, which i now feel is another attempt to coverup what happened that day! millions of people will watch this film thinking that, this was what really happened and will feel sadness and feel for the familys involved! which is wrong, because none of the events actually happened!!

Research is fun!!!

[sat556]

I've been avoiding that silly forum, but I've just had a nosey and found somebody saying that the 'hardcore sheep' just won't believe without evidence. Apparently even if these sheep don't like Bush, they still won't believe it was a conspiracy. Oh ffs. I'll be a sheep then. :sheep:

[Gravy]

I've been avoiding that silly forum, but I've just had a nosey and found somebody saying that the 'hardcore sheep' just won't believe without evidence. Apparently even if these sheep don't like Bush, they still won't believe it was a conspiracy. Oh ffs. I'll be a sheep then. :sheep:
"Hardcore sheep?" They HAVE been watching too many videos! :drool:

[Twilek]

Is it just me, or are not only the smilies at the Looser site annoying, but the juvenile, clubish use of them enough to make it difficult to read anything there without laughing? The saluting smiley is about the silliest and overused thing I've ever seen.

On a more important note, as a lurker I must thank you all for being able to be so persistent in the debate here, a debate in which I simply can't keep up. The scientific, factual and visual links, which I email to myself from lunch break each day to review later on at home, are a goldmine of information. I've learned a lot and saved many of them for posterity to help me present evidence to anyone I know who might be listening to these guys.

[sat556]

"Hardcore sheep?" They HAVE been watching too many videos! :drool:

So rude! :faint:

[Polaris]

Of course the original Osama video didn't have subtitles. But when did I say I had a video with OR without subtitles, you blithering idiot? Can you, an "imaging specialist," imagine a video that has subtitles in some parts and not others? And why haven't you watched the video yet? What are you afraid of? It's only Osama the Harmless.

If you think I'm b.s.ing you, do your homework and prove it. I do my homework, and i have proved you to be wrong every single day. Isn't it time you got one on me? Won't it feel good? Give it the old college try, geggy.

Here's a challenge: you go over each of my posts in this thread and pick out the errors. I'll do the same with yours. We tally things up, and pay $10 for each error we've made. The money goes to a worthy 9/11-related cause. Are you with me?

Every day you say at least one thing that's blazingly stupid, it's pointed out to you that it's stupid, and why it's stupid, and yet the next day you come back and do it again. And again. And again. And again. Every single day.

It's not my nature to call people names in public, but geggy, you have made quite a public spectacle of your ignorance and unwillingness to learn from your mistakes.

How do you feel about your approach to all this? Is it working out? Are you comfortable with how it's going? Seeing good progress, are you?

I tried to find a link to view the video, but looking online for it is like poking a stick in a hornet's nest. It's page after page of conspiracy theory yakk about how it's an actor, or that bin Laden has alwasy been a CIA stooge, or it was a deliberate mistranslation, etc. etc. None actually have the video - all they have are screenshots. Is there a place to actually watch it?

[Polaris]

I'm guessing this has been posted somewhere before, but NIST site has some pretty interesting computer simulations (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm).

Bloody .ram videos. How do you open them?

[Ramooone]

Bloody .ram videos. How do you open them?

real player

[WildCat]

real player
RealPlayer? There IS a gov't conspiracy!

[Regnad Kcin]

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

Also, not that you''ll answer, what do you do for a living?

[Mongrel]

Bloody .ram videos. How do you open them?
And if you don't want to put that POS bit of software on your PC then theirs always Real Alternative (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm). All the codec, none of the system hog :)

[Manny]

"Hardcore sheep?" They HAVE been watching too many videos! :drool:Actually, I think I may have a hardcore sheep video sitting around here somewhere. It was for a bachelor party, I swear!

[Beerina]

If I didn't know how to think crticially then I would've swallowed the bs that were laid out in the sept 11 commission report while reading it, which I doubt any of you actually read.

I read it. Which exact parts are BS?

[Beerina]

After reading this thread...wow.

They're actually claiming that an airliner CAN'T HIT THE GROUND if it's going faster than 400 mph!

This, coupled with the revelation that skyscrapers are immune to fire, is quite a relief to me. The world is much safer than I thought! Well, it would be except for all the murderous globalists, of course.

Well, I do recall a PBS special about airplane crash detectives who determined a jet that plunged towards the ground tore apart at about 10,000 feet because they just can't go that fast in the thicker deeper atmosphere. I don't recall what that speed was, though, and presumably it varies, the slower, the lower in the atmosphere.

[WildCat]

The loosers have been screaming all this time about how the gov't is witholding evidence, and how they want to see the evidence they're witholding. Now that the Moussaoui trial is over, the exhibits (http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/) (warning graphic pics of bodies) have been released, including pics of bodies and personal effects found in the wreckage at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Robo started a thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2252) about it hours ago... it has yet to get a single response. So much for "research".

[WildCat]

Looks like the pilot episode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhMozT8nWgc&search=Lone%20Gunmen) of the short-lived X-Files spinoff The Lone Gunmen pretty much sums up the loosers beliefs - pre-9/11! They just can't tell the fiction from the reality.

Click the link to youtube - this is the world the CTers live in! :D

[kookbreaker]

The loosers have been screaming all this time about how the gov't is witholding evidence, and how they want to see the evidence they're witholding. Now that the Moussaoui trial is over, the exhibits (http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/) (warning graphic pics of bodies) have been released, including pics of bodies and personal effects found in the wreckage at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Robo started a thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2252) about it hours ago... it has yet to get a single response. So much for "research".

Well, they need to wait until Dylan or other CT websites tell them what to think about all that stuff.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, I do recall a PBS special about airplane crash detectives who determined a jet that plunged towards the ground tore apart at about 10,000 feet because they just can't go that fast in the thicker deeper atmosphere. I don't recall what that speed was, though, and presumably it varies, the slower, the lower in the atmosphere.

Well, we all saw the other two planes hit the WTC, and the difference in the thickness of the atmosphere on the 80th floor or so and the ground is pretty negligible.

I think what the CT's "expert" was saying was that vortexes and wind shear and whatnot would push the plane back up in the air as it approached the ground. (Sort of like Douglas Adam's secret to flying: "Throw yourself at the ground and miss.")

This, I think they were arguing, would have made it extremely difficult to hit an exact spot. I'm pretty sure these difficulties would have been familiar to the hijackers, though, having worked in simulators. Even crude ones like Microsoft's Flight Simulator did a fairly good job of re-creating the laws of physics.

[60hzxtl]

I can't help but laugh (keeps me from crying) at the Loser's (MY spelling not a typo!) position on this. They think that the secret government is full of yes-men conspirators, keeping them down, and now THEY have become a collection of yes-men.

Then there's this:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=750

Boogie booogie!

They can't find the victims on the Social Security Death Index - why? Because (for the most part, not exclusively) SSDI tracks people who have died, while collecting Social Security, listing their place of death as where their LAST CHECK was delivered. If you are struck down in your prime, you aren't getting ss benefits, and you are not on the list - how would you get there? Who would tell them? Big Brother? If granny dies in Vegas after hitting 3 cherries on the slots, it will list NJ as the place of her death because that's were her last check went.

And that is EXPLAINED on the ssdi website. But ya gotta read it!

[CptColumbo]

A small concession on the Chertoff issue at:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=682

ok, looks like the relation between the 2 Chertoff individuals isn't a *fact* but a very likely possibility.

A small concession, but a start. However, we take a few steps back.

regardless, there's countless evidence besides this small addition that points to governmental cover up like a whole bunch of video tape of what happened at the pentagon being withheld, pictures and video tape that's being withheld of what happened at WTC 7 building and additional footage of the two towers, the fact that bombs where planted in the buildings under the watch of Securicom which was run by the presidents brother, that vice president dick cheney allowed the planes to crash into the buildings by not giving orders for the planes to be intercepted and taken down, that audio tapes of firefighters on the scene where confiscated (although some of it has been leaked and showed that the fire in building 2 I think was dying down), the fact that many of the alleged highjackers are reportedly still alive, the fact that one of these highjackers who was found to be alive had his passport found in perfect condition in the rubble of the attack even when the black boxes that are designed to survive any plane crash where said to be destroyed, the fact that put options where placed in the stock market indicating forknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and volumes of other evidence that hasn't ever been adressed by our government which indicates that the higher ups in our government orchistrated and is covering up the truth of the world trade center terrorist attack and used it as a ploy to violate our rights as americans and to dominate the middle east militarily.

[OMGturt1es]

OK, i FINALLY am caught up in this thread; having found it after it already contained 50+ posts, it's taken me sometime to reach the end!

firstly, THANK YOU to those of you who have done such excellent research! it's BEYOND REFRESHING to see people on the internet who actually require evidence! i've been the SOLE SKEPTIC on many boards concerning this 9/11 conspiracy BS, and it just gets OLD being thrown 375 claims every five posts that amount to circumstancial evidence at best, and are not supported by ANY evidence.

secondly, regarding a possible loose change refute video, I WILL GLADLY DONATE FUNDING!! i'm also planning on starting a couple websites that tackle all this 9/11 crap, especially loose change, and i'd love to have permission to make use of GRAVY'S refute (which i would likely add to, with permission).

AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL!!

take care,
anthony.

[CptColumbo]

Welcome ^varg/antony.

[BPScooter]

Quick thanks and tip-of-my-hat to Gravy. This is a long thread and although I do believe that what I think is true, someone could come along with some bunk and get me to turn my head for a minute. Gravy's links were just the thing to remind me that thinking and reason remain alive. I will now try to go and read the last 500 posts on this topic.

[sat556]

The Pentagon tapes. Why have they not been released? I have read this thead but I can't recall the answer, if one ws given.
Surely they can't show any top secret information?
However, after reading this thread, it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the paranoid conspiracy types.

[kookbreaker]

The Pentagon tapes. Why have they not been released? I have read this thead but I can't recall the answer, if one ws given.
Surely they can't show any top secret information?


If these tapes were Pentagon cameras they could be released. I have seen no evidence that any other Pentagon cameras were able to view the crash area.

If they were cameras from other private sources (a 7-11 is often cited), then just because they were confiscated does not mean that the government owns them. Releasing them would mean legal coimplcations about income derived from private property. Look a the fairly recent legal matters surrounding the Zapruder Film for an example.

[kookbreaker]

OK, i FINALLY am caught up in this thread; having found it after it already contained 50+ posts, it's taken me sometime to reach the end!

firstly, THANK YOU to those of you who have done such excellent research! it's BEYOND REFRESHING to see people on the internet who actually require evidence! i've been the SOLE SKEPTIC on many boards concerning this 9/11 conspiracy BS, and it just gets OLD being thrown 375 claims every five posts that amount to circumstancial evidence at best, and are not supported by ANY evidence.

secondly, regarding a possible loose change refute video, I WILL GLADLY DONATE FUNDING!! i'm also planning on starting a couple websites that tackle all this 9/11 crap, especially loose change, and i'd love to have permission to make use of GRAVY'S refute (which i would likely add to, with permission).

AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL!!

take care,
anthony.

Thank you as well and welcome Anthony.

I would like to point out that it is for people like Anthony that I am argueing with the CT nutters.

I am aware that people like Roxdog, Alek, and Geggy are essentially cultists who will never change their beliefs about anhy conspiracy. They will only refine and obfuscate so that they can continue to believe.

But their aggressive antics are like a disease. Without countermeasures they can infest otherwise ordinary people. Without countermanding facts, those people can come to beleive in the crazies of theories.

JFK assasination was a lesson to me. I used to buy the whole 'horde of snipers, none of whom was Oswald killed JFK' nonsense. I heard only one side of the story. Then I read a bit more and found out a rather disturbing fact:

Conspiracy theorists lie.

Sure, the government , plays coy, isn't fully forthcoming, and sometimes outright lies. But they are rank amatuers compared to the outright malicous liars that conpiracy theorists are.

Conspiracy theorists would have us beleive:

Skyscrapers are immune to fire.

A tent is a tarp to hide missile parts

Planes can be easily remote controlled to fly in circles, but a trained pilot cannot do this.

Planes flying low at top speed cannot crash.

All buildings are built the same way and thus will stand or fall given the same disaster circumstances.

Any sound heard in a fire is a deliebrately placed bomb

Enough explosives can be placed to bring down a tower in about 15 minutes.

A chunk of grey stuff with rust color and rebar is cooled molten metal

That molten metal was found on the cleanup cite

That the WTC metal was hauled off to china and destroyed before anyone could examine it.

etc, etc, etc.

[TjW]

Well, we all saw the other two planes hit the WTC, and the difference in the thickness of the atmosphere on the 80th floor or so and the ground is pretty negligible.

I think what the CT's "expert" was saying was that vortexes and wind shear and whatnot would push the plane back up in the air as it approached the ground. (Sort of like Douglas Adam's secret to flying: "Throw yourself at the ground and miss.")

This, I think they were arguing, would have made it extremely difficult to hit an exact spot. I'm pretty sure these difficulties would have been familiar to the hijackers, though, having worked in simulators. Even crude ones like Microsoft's Flight Simulator did a fairly good job of re-creating the laws of physics.

Well, there IS something called "ground effect", which basically reduces the drag on an airplane within a wingspan or so of the ground. But it doesn't push it back up into the air, it just reduces the drag. It doesn't affect the controllability of the airplane at all.

Ground effect can make it difficult to land at a particular horizontal spot on a runway. It doesn't affect at all the ability to make the wheels start rolling on the ground at that point. You'll just be going too fast.

Somewhere way back up the thread, I'm sure I pointed out that all you have to do to collide with something is maintain the same relative bearing with it until the collision occurs. Ground effect doesn't affect that.

[Gravy]

Holymarymotherofsufferingjeebus I finally finished making changes to my "Loose Change" critique.

I made a ton of changes since the version I posted a couple of days ago. More info, more pics, easier to read, etc. I can't even tell you how much more work the whole thing was than I had anticipated. CurtC has been good enough to offer his hosting services, so I hope you'l thank him. I'll post a link here when I'm sure it's ready.

[Ersby]

Thanks to CurtC, and most of all thanks to you, Gravy and others who've chipped in. I've been very impressed with the meticulous way the CTers' arguments have been dealt with.

[60hzxtl]

Gravy - I hope you can make a .PDF version available - it will make distribution easier.

Thank you for what you've done, and to Delphi ote for starting this to counter the Losers.

[Gravy]

Gravy - I hope you can make a .PDF version available - it will make distribution easier.

Thank you for what you've done, and to Delphi ote for starting this to counter the Losers.

I'll be glad to send you a pdf, but there's an issue with pdfs and web links. You can either preserve the document formatting or the links, but not both. At least that's with the latest version of Acrobat for Mac. There may be a 3rd party workaround for PC.

[WildCat]

Holymarymotherofsufferingjeebus I finally finished making changes to my "Loose Change" critique.

I made a ton of changes since the version I posted a couple of days ago. More info, more pics, easier to read, etc. I can't even tell you how much more work the whole thing was than I had anticipated. CurtC has been good enough to offer his hosting services, so I hope you'l thank him. I'll post a link here when I'm sure it's ready.
Sounds great Gravy!

BTW, the free weekly paper here in Chicago - the Chicago Reader (http://www.chicagoreader.com/) - gives free classified ads for non-profit endeavors. Maybe we could advertise the url there when it's up? Perhaps other cities have similar newspapers.

[CurtC]

I made a ton of changes since the version I posted a couple of days ago.The new version is now posted:

http://tinyurl.com/epp82

[Gravy]

The new version is now posted:

http://tinyurl.com/epp82
Thanks Curt! I'm about to email the head Loosers and ask for their feedback.

[Gravy]

Sounds great Gravy!

BTW, the free weekly paper here in Chicago - the Chicago Reader (http://www.chicagoreader.com/) - gives free classified ads for non-profit endeavors. Maybe we could advertise the url there when it's up? Perhaps other cities have similar newspapers.

I wonder what category that would come under? Services: Debunking?

[WildCat]

I wonder what category that would come under? Services: Debunking?
Just under Announcements. It'd be free, so why not?

[Ramooone]

heres an article on conspiracy theorists from a canadian newspaper
http://torontosun.com/Entertainment/Movies/2006/05/07/1568375-sun.html

[chipmunk stew]

The new version is now posted:

http://tinyurl.com/epp82 Awesome! Now I have a new sig.

[chipmunk stew]

Thanks Curt! I'm about to email the head Loosers and ask for their feedback.I'd like to hear what these guys have to say, too:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ContactUs.html

As well as this guy:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-contact.html-.html

[Pardalis]

If you're still around geggy, let me dissect your logic, because I really don't understand it:

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

So why all these links to real "normal" implosions of buildings you posted?

I'm saying it was done differently and uniquely for the towers

So you acknowledge this was a unique event, as in "unprecedented".

to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling

But the towers did collapse from the top, so of course the top looked like it was falling.

as if the structure of the building was failing.

It wasn't??? uh... let me requote that one...

to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling as if the structure of the building was failing

I think I've reached my limit in understanding the English language. To me, this makes no sense. Can you rephrase that one for me geggy?

[Pardalis]

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.

I hear you. What I personnaly find most aggravating, is that they don't even want to back up the very logic of their claims. Regardless of evidence and facts (wich they will always say can be fabricated, that even the most reliable and internationally recognised investigating agencies have been cohersed), they can't seem to intellectualise their theories into a rational cohesiveness. They defy logic itself.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, there IS something called "ground effect", which basically reduces the drag on an airplane within a wingspan or so of the ground. But it doesn't push it back up into the air, it just reduces the drag. It doesn't affect the controllability of the airplane at all.

Ground effect can make it difficult to land at a particular horizontal spot on a runway. It doesn't affect at all the ability to make the wheels start rolling on the ground at that point. You'll just be going too fast.

Somewhere way back up the thread, I'm sure I pointed out that all you have to do to collide with something is maintain the same relative bearing with it until the collision occurs. Ground effect doesn't affect that.


Thanks, that clears things up.

I remember shortly after 9/11 when they were still trying to determine if the hijackers were actually flying the plane or if they were coercing the pilots to fly into buildings. One pilot came out to say that it required far to much expertise to crash into a building for mere students to accomplish it. This was the only pilot that thought so, however, so this theory died pretty quickly.

(I never believed it was anyone but the hijackers who had done the deed. From what I know about pilots, they are not cut from the sort of cloth that would allow them to meekly do as their told, killing themselves and thousands of other people. They would sooner dive straight into the ground.)

[aggle-rithm]

I think I've reached my limit in understanding the English language. To me, this makes no sense. Can you rephrase that one for me geggy?

I think it's the secret CT language known as "obfuscation". ;)

[Pardalis]

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,

It's true that this particular administration has been a pro at making mistakes and enemies, the global discontent of their policies is fueling conspiracism like it never was before, but the lure of conspiracism has always been around, and always will be.

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.

Notice how Ossama Bin Laden is now quoting Michael Moore's films to legitimise his very own actions:

"But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah." -Osama turned into comedian.

[geggy]

If you guys are looking for sponsors for your little movie, I'm sure the bush admin will be more than willing to help with the funding...

Really, then you will have no problem telling me specifically what in the report was bs, please include details regarding why along with the supporting analysis.

Reason why it was easier for me to criticize the sept 11 commission report was because I started reading articles relating to sept 11 in 2002. I noticed that in the report the time of FAA notifying NORAD of the hijacked planes had been changed. For example, it was officially reported by FEMA that the FAA first contacted NORAD that AA175 had been hijacked at 8:43. Fighter jets were deployed in Otis air force base at 8:46 but couldn't get to NYC in time. But in the commission report, it said that FAA first contacted NORAD at 9:03, around the same time AA175 crashed into the south tower. Really odd.

I'm not sure if this was addressed by PM or the commission report, but it was reported by either one that the only time NORAD ever intercepted a diverted plane in the decade prior to sept 11 was in 1999 when golfer Payne Stewert's jet crashed. But in NORAD's official report, it was confirmed that they had intercepted diverted planes 67 times from sept 2000 to june 2001.

[DavidJames]

If you guys are looking for sponsors for your little movie, I'm sure the bush admin will be more than willing to help with the funding...



Reason why it was easier for me to criticize the sept 11 commission report was because I started reading articles relating to sept 11 in 2002. I noticed that in the report the time of FAA notifying NORAD of the hijacked planes had been changed. For example, it was officially reported by FEMA that the FAA first contacted NORAD that AA175 had been hijacked at 8:43. Fighter jets were deployed in Otis air force base at 8:46 but couldn't get to NYC in time. But in the commission report, it said that FAA first contacted NORAD at 9:03, around the same time AA175 crashed into the south tower. Really odd.

I'm not sure if this was addressed by PM or the commission report, but it was reported by either one that the only time NORAD ever intercepted a diverted plane in the decade prior to sept 11 was in 1999 when golfer Payne Stewert's jet crashed. But in NORAD's official report, it was confirmed that they had intercepted diverted planes 67 times from sept 2000 to june 2001.sources?

[OMGturt1es]

I'm not sure if this was addressed by PM or the commission report, but it was reported by either one that the only time NORAD ever intercepted a diverted plane in the decade prior to sept 11 was in 1999 when golfer Payne Stewert's jet crashed. But in NORAD's official report, it was confirmed that they had intercepted diverted planes 67 times from sept 2000 to june 2001.


the PM article claimed "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

a "debunk" of the PM article (http(no www)911reviewDOTcom/pm/markup/indexDOThtml) makes the following claim:

PM's claim that only one civilian plane was intercepted over North America in decade before 9/11 is preposterous and illustrates how sloppy the article is with facts. While the military doesn't report intercepts, the AP reported the following statement from one of PM's own experts, Maj. Douglas Martin: "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."


i don't know exactly what the differences between "intercept" and "scramble" are, but i have a funny feeling that they may be of interest here ;)

[Ramooone]

If you guys are looking for sponsors for your little movie, I'm sure the bush admin will be more than willing to help with the funding...



Reason why it was easier for me to criticize the sept 11 commission report was because I started reading articles relating to sept 11 in 2002. I noticed that in the report the time of FAA notifying NORAD of the hijacked planes had been changed. For example, it was officially reported by FEMA that the FAA first contacted NORAD that AA175 had been hijacked at 8:43. Fighter jets were deployed in Otis air force base at 8:46 but couldn't get to NYC in time. But in the commission report, it said that FAA first contacted NORAD at 9:03, around the same time AA175 crashed into the south tower. Really odd.

I'm not sure if this was addressed by PM or the commission report, but it was reported by either one that the only time NORAD ever intercepted a diverted plane in the decade prior to sept 11 was in 1999 when golfer Payne Stewert's jet crashed. But in NORAD's official report, it was confirmed that they had intercepted diverted planes 67 times from sept 2000 to june 2001.


Geggy, what does any of this matter if the buildings were already rigged for controlled demolition?

[Ramooone]

UPDATE!!

I got a response from steve the guy who saw the plane hit the pentagon and took the pictures afterwards. heres his reply, apparently the CTers have gotten to him already.

"Its too late about the contact info. Its already readily available even off my site so Ive been dealing with the harrassment for years now.

I am kind of tired of recounting the event over and over again but I will reitirate that it was indeed an American Airlines 757 that hit the pentagon and not a missle."

Steve

Ok now geggy, heres an EYEWITNESS who saw the plane hit the pentagon. he didnt go into detail, but i dont blame him since he's had constant harrassment from nutcases.

[kookbreaker]

I'm not sure if this was addressed by PM or the commission report, but it was reported by either one that the only time NORAD ever intercepted a diverted plane in the decade prior to sept 11 was in 1999 when golfer Payne Stewert's jet crashed. But in NORAD's official report, it was confirmed that they had intercepted diverted planes 67 times from sept 2000 to june 2001.

None of the intercepts were over the Continental US. They were ADIZ intercepts over the Oceans. That makes it a completely different game.

[OMGturt1es]

None of the intercepts were over the Continental US. They were ADIZ intercepts over the Oceans. That makes it a completely different game.


hahah! awesome! where'd you find that out at?

[OMGturt1es]

Its too late about the contact info. Its already readily available even off my site so Ive been dealing with the harrassment for years now.


:o

wow.

[Gravy]

But in the commission report, it said that FAA first contacted NORAD at 9:03, around the same time AA175 crashed into the south tower. Really odd.
Another day, another howlingly ignorant statement from geggy.

From the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1
Military Notification and Response.

Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out.

At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked.

FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.

At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.

F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.

Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.

In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.

Still refusing to do your homework, eh, geggy? Please respond to these questions, which I posed yesterday, and will continue posing until you go away or show signs of getting a clue:

How do you feel about your approach to all this? Is it working out? Are you comfortable with how it's going? Seeing good progress, are you?

edited for punctuation

[senorpogo]

I'm going through the new Loose Change guide (AMAZING work by the way) and came to maybe my favorite part of LC. By favorite, I mean the silliest, wackiest, wonkiest, and most slaptastic.

While talking about Ground Zero...

"Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

It gets better than that!

On July 15th, 2001. Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400 ft tall fuel reserve tanks from the World War II era.

The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complaints from the neighborhood.

The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed."

What on God's green earth does this have to do with anything?!?!?

[Gravy]

I'm going through the new Loose Change guide (AMAZING work by the way) and came to maybe my favorite part of LC. By favorite, I mean the silliest, wackiest, wonkiest, and most slaptastic.

While talking about Ground Zero...

"Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

It gets better than that!

On July 15th, 2001. Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400 ft tall fuel reserve tanks from the World War II era.

The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complaints from the neighborhood.

The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed."

What on God's green earth does this have to do with anything?!?!?
That's one of my favorite parts also. The CTists claim that CDI was "practicing" for the WTC demolition! And they totally ignore that the demolition of the tanks was contracted for by Keyspan Energy, and public hearings were held about them! How much more can they get wrong in a few sentences?

[60hzxtl]

On July 15th, 2001. Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400 ft tall fuel reserve tanks from the World War II era.

The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complaints from the neighborhood.

The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed."

What on God's green earth does this have to do with anything?!?!?


Exactly - first of all these were natural gas storage tanks, built in the 1920's, 20 years prior to WW 2 era, and had been empty, vacant, no longer used, and awaiting razing for YEARS. (we pipe our gas in now, no storage.) It was well publicized - in the papers, on the radio etc. - How do I know? I went to see it!

When I saw LC I couldn't help laughing about that, and its irrelevance to the whole thing as something - Boogie boogie significant!

Oh wait I see the significance now - there were 2 of them! Side by side! Yup that's it! My eyes are opened! 2 of em!

[Gravy]

Oh wait I see the significance now - there were 2 of them! Side by side! Yup that's it! My eyes are opened! 2 of em!
Oh, crap! I totally missed that! Now I have to go back and re-do my whole critique.

[aggle-rithm]

That's one of my favorite parts also. The CTists claim that CDI was "practicing" for the WTC demolition! And they totally ignore that the demolition of the tanks was contracted for by Keyspan Energy, and public hearings were held about them! How much more can they get wrong in a few sentences?

Ha, ha! I guess they figured that the tanks and the WTC were just alike in that they were large objects and there were two of them.

[OMGturt1es]

The CTists claim that CDI was "practicing" for the WTC demolition!



Oh wait I see the significance now - there were 2 of them! Side by side! Yup that's it! My eyes are opened! 2 of em!


the truth is undeniable now.

[OMGturt1es]

Thank you as well and welcome Anthony.

I would like to point out that it is for people like Anthony that I am argueing with the CT nutters.


WHY, THANK YOU!!

i've been arguing against them for awhile now, and it's EXASPERATING. you should see the pile of "documentaries" and "essays" that i've been pointed too. it never ends. it's like arguing with "creation scientists"... :s


IN FACT, here's a list that was given to be by -ONE- poster:

VIDEOS:
911 road to tyrany
911 the grand illusion
illuminazi 911
911 painful deceptions
marshall law
american dictators
loose change
in plane site
masters of terror
oil and the war on terror/mike ruppert
911 the biggest lie ever sold

BOOKS:
911 the big lie
pentagate
911 the grand illusion
911 decent into tyrany
911 revealed

it's amazing how many people are perpetuating all this crap.

[senorpogo]

Ha, ha! I guess they figured that the tanks and the WTC were just alike in that they were large objects and there were two of them.

Exactly. And it's also worth noting that most expert companies in demolition do a test run before a big demo on a building. Usually, it's on empty tanks that bare no structural resemblence what-so-ever to the building that's to be blown up.

I'm just finishing up the guide now. You know, when you sit down and see how absurd all these CT claims are, you can't help but wonder why it is they even have to be debunked? Seriously. It's a shame Gravy had to spend X nights and Y hours doing this when he could have been doing something else productive.

[60hzxtl]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

(Edmund Burke)

Here's to ya Gravy - you've done your part. And more.

Five people I crossed paths with are dead in hole. They just went to work that day. They shouldn't be spit on too.

[kookbreaker]

hahah! awesome! where'd you find that out at?

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/oct/busting_tfr.html


In the year previous to 9/11, NORAD intercepted airplanes in the ADIZ only 67 times, none of which occurred within the U.S. borders.

[OMGturt1es]

thanks!

[Regnad Kcin]

If you guys are looking for sponsors for your little movie, I'm sure the bush admin will be more than willing to help with the funding...Once again:

What is your I.Q.?

What do you do for a living?

[geggy]

sources?

[quote]United Airlines Flight 175

[Gravy]

[quote]United Airlines Flight 175
How do you feel about your approach to all this? Is it working out? Are you comfortable with how it's going? Seeing good progress, are you?

[Gravy]

Well, we don't know what geggy does for a living, but we know what he thinks of his job
Put the key of despair into the lock of apathy. Turn the knob of mediocrity slowly and open the gates of despondency-welcome to a day in the office.
I suppose fantasizing is a nice escape from that. But why not pick a subject to fantasize over that doesn't matter so much?

[WildCat]

Gravy, I'm still getting that "tiff compressor" message on page 73.

[Dr Adequate]

One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.

For example, they drag Larry Silverstein into it. Why? It is quite possible to crash a plane into a building without first notifying the landlord. Why would then conspirators need to reveal their plans to him? He's just one more mouth to keep silent.

There's the allegations about the stock market. Me, if I was going to commit mass murder, I wouldn't mention it in advance to a bunch of share dealers, for fear that one of them might talk. The CTs, however, are eager to add these speculators to the list of people who are complicit and silent.

Then there's the bit where for no apparent reason the conspirators evacuate the passengers from the planes. This means that the conspirators now need ground crew to land the planes, secretly, people to hide the passengers, and you need to coerce forensic medical teams into pretending they found body parts. You need a whole call center full of people pretending to be frightened passengers phoning friends and relatives, and their deception must be perfect. And THEY have to keep quiet afterwards.

Now instead of involving all these people, why not just crash the planes into the building with the passengers on board? This would also have the effect of making people think that the planes crashed with the passengers on board --- and wouldn't need all the extra conspirators.

Then there's the fact that the planes were monitored on radar. If the planes stopped off somewhere to unload all the passengers, then this requires the people monitoring the planes on radar to be part of the conspiracy.

Again, we have to ask --- instead of involving all these extra people, why not just fly the plane into the building? By adding these senseless manoevres to the conspiracy, the CTs add hundreds to the tally of conspirators.

Then there's Flight 77. Apparently, the conspirators wished to give the impression that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So they hid Flight 77 somewhere, and fired a missile disguised as a jumbo jet at the Pentagon instead. This, of course, requires lots of people to design and build a fake jumbo jet. And someone to fire it at the Pentagon.

Now, the conspirators could have dispensed with the services of all these people, and still given the impression that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon BY CRASHING FLIGHT 77 INTO THE PENTAGON. But they seem to be addicted to doing things the hard way.

So the CTs wilfully add in to the conspiracy a secret THE SIZE OF A JUMBO JET, and the people to design build it.

And so we come on to the controlled demolition. Not content with arranging one attack on the Twin Towers, the conspirators went to the trouble of arranging TWO, requiring completely different sets of technical experts. Instead of going with the claim that Evil Repulicans destroyed the Twin Towers BY CRASHING PLANES INTO THEM --- the CTs blandly double the size of the conspiracy.

There's the infamous "pull it" remark. Now, what were the conspirators thinking when they decided to delegate this bit of the conpiracy to firemen? Why not leave it in the capable hands of the people who rigged the explosives in the first place? But no, let's drag in yet another bunch of people to be complicit!

Now of course in order to make their theory PLAUSIBLE, the CTs should be hotly denying that it required the collaboration of FIREMEN, OF ALL PEOPLE. But instead, they insist on it.

And then there's the matter of clearing up the rubble of this controlled demolition. Four different firms were hired. Experts in the field, they would have surely recognised the shearing of the steel columns which would have been produced by a controlled demolition. All those people have to keep their silence.

Again, the CTs could save themselves this problem by simply claiming that Evil Republicans crashed planes into the towers, CAUSING THEM TO COLLAPSE. But no, instead let's add another few hundred collaborators.

And then the CTs make even more trouble for themselves by insisting that the fake collapse was a CLUMSY fake. Instead of making the towers collapse in such a way that they looked like towers collapsing, the conspiracy chose instead to destroy them in a way that the discerning can recognise as a controlled demolition.

Having done that, the conspirators merely need to coerce, blackmail and intimidate tens of thousands of technical experts in construction and demolition for the rest of their lives.

And more structural engineers graduate every year. Hundreds of them. FOREVER.

Now if the CTs really have their little hearts set on the use of explosives to bring down the towers, then why not say that the fake collapse was a GOOD fake which FOOLED the experts? But no: instead they require thousands of people to be coerced into silence.

By this point the conspiracy blackmailing and monitoring so many thousands of people that the number of people required just to do all the coercion is itself significant. People don't just blackmail themselves.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Perhaps the blackmailers blackmail each other.

And finally there are the CTs who wish to drag in every other violent event of the past century --- Oklahoma City, the shooting of Malcom X, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now the conspiracy is not just enormous but has been HANDED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION. Without anyone talking.

The CTs' mistake, I think, is this. They suppose that the more aspects of 9/11 they argue to be bogus, the more weight this adds to their conspiracy theory. But in order to argue that any particular aspect of the incident was fake, they need to add another dozen or hundred or thousand people to the conspiracy. The result of this is that their theory now requires THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE as willing or unwilling collaborators than would be required simply to crash the planes and blame it on a bunch of Arabs. And it requires the conspirators to involve all these extra people just, it would seem, for the heck of it. We have fake terrorists, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake radar records, fake seismographic records, fake jumbo jets, fake building collapses, fake body parts, fake forensic evidence, and fake expert opinions --- and of all these ONLY THE FAKE TERRORISTS are actually necessary to produce a fake terrorist attack. All the other fakes seem to have been put into the conspiracy just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.

[Regnad Kcin]

But Dr A, you missed the trump card: Bush is evil.

[Regnad Kcin]

C'mon geggy, what do you do for a living? You can tell us. After all, the government knows, what with that W-2 you file every year on April 15th.

[Polaris]

Gravy - I got this message when I downloaded your Loose Change critique:

FAIR USE NOTICE: While this document consists of significant amounts of original content, in order to explore and advance understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, it has been necessary to reference some material that is copyrighted. Such use falls under the 'fair use' provisions set out in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Equivalent provisions exist in EU law. Thus, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information, specifically for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner

[Gravy]

Gravy - I got this message when I downloaded your Loose Change critique:

FAIR USE NOTICE: While this document consists of significant amounts of original content, in order to explore and advance understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, it has been necessary to reference some material that is copyrighted. Such use falls under the 'fair use' provisions set out in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Equivalent provisions exist in EU law. Thus, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information, specifically for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner
Yes, that's on the last page.Did you get the rest of it?

[Gravy]

One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.
Their brains must have fuses. Otherwise they'd blow up or catch on fire, wouldn't they?

[Gravy]

Gravy, I'm still getting that "tiff compressor" message on page 73.
Well, you didn't miss much there. It's just a steel stress/strain chart, and you already know that steel weakens when it gets hot. I was tempted to make my own chart that showed steel getting stronger as it heats up, just to catch the occasional CTer screaming, "Aha!"

[Ramooone]

Well, you didn't miss much there. It's just a steel stress/strain chart, and you already know that steel weakens when it gets hot. I was tempted to make my own chart that showed steel getting stronger as it heats up, just to catch the occasional CTer screaming, "Aha!"

hahahahahahaha, that would be awesome. they would totally buy that.

[hellaeon]

hahaha nice Dr Adequate. Thats a brilliant piece of work.
someone who is registered at the loose nuts forum should post it.

[RSLancastr]

You know, when you sit down and see how absurd all these CT claims are, you can't help but wonder why it is they even have to be debunked? Seriously. It's a shame Gravy had to spend X nights and Y hours doing this when he could have been doing something else productive.A few nights ago I was signing off of the JREF chat room so that I could complete an article I was writing for the StopKaz site regarding Kaz's claim that she has earned a doctorate.

On the way out, I told all in the room that it felt like I was "struggling to prove the painfully obvious."

Someone else in the room - forgive me, I don't recall who - said "That's what all skeptics feel like they are doing."

The more I thought about that statement, the more I saw how true it was.

Sometimes what a skeptic does, particularly a skeptic who has chosen to take on a project such as the one Gravy has tackled, is to explain to others, sometimes in minute detail, something which he or she finds painfully obvious. This is done in hopes that it will inturn become painfully obvious to at least some in their audience who otherwise would not have put it all together.

This is a worthwhile endeavor, well worth the days and hours put into it.

[senorpogo]

A few nights ago I was signing off of the JREF chat room so that I could complete an article I was writing for the StopKaz site regarding Kaz's claim that she has earned a doctorate.

On the way out, I told all in the room that it felt like I was "struggling to prove the painfully obvious."

Someone else in the room - forgive me, I don't recall who - said "That's what all skeptics feel like they are doing."

The more I thought about that statement, the more I saw how true it was.

Sometimes what a skeptic does, particularly a skeptic who has chosen to take on a project such as the one Gravy has tackled, is to explain to others, sometimes in minute detail, something which he or she finds painfully obvious. This is done in hopes that it will inturn become painfully obvious to at least some in their audience who otherwise would not have put it all together.

This is a worthwhile endeavor, well worth the days and hours put into it.

True. Very true.

Just for the record, I'm was never suggesting otherwise.
It's just sad that the painfully obvious isn't so obvious to some.
But I guess if it were, this forum wouldn't exist, Randi would be selling real estate (or whatever Randi does outside of magic and thinking critically), and the world would be an infinitely better place.

But that ain't the way it is. And I should stop complaining.

[dissonance]

Then there's the fact that the planes were monitored on radar. If the planes stopped off somewhere to unload all the passengers, then this requires the people monitoring the planes on radar to be part of the conspiracy.

Does anyone else remember the documentary on the air traffic controllers? A&E, I think. There were an awful lot of people watching the progress of the planes on 911. The idea they landed somewhere is just so completely ridiculus I can't believe anyone buys it.

[chipmunk stew]

One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.

For example, they drag Larry Silverstein into it. Why? It is quite possible to crash a plane into a building without first notifying the landlord. Why would then conspirators need to reveal their plans to him? He's just one more mouth to keep silent.

There's the allegations about the stock market. Me, if I was going to commit mass murder, I wouldn't mention it in advance to a bunch of share dealers, for fear that one of them might talk. The CTs, however, are eager to add these speculators to the list of people who are complicit and silent.

Then there's the bit where for no apparent reason the conspirators evacuate the passengers from the planes. This means that the conspirators now need ground crew to land the planes, secretly, people to hide the passengers, and you need to coerce forensic medical teams into pretending they found body parts. You need a whole call center full of people pretending to be frightened passengers phoning friends and relatives, and their deception must be perfect. And THEY have to keep quiet afterwards.

Now instead of involving all these people, why not just crash the planes into the building with the passengers on board? This would also have the effect of making people think that the planes crashed with the passengers on board --- and wouldn't need all the extra conspirators.

Then there's the fact that the planes were monitored on radar. If the planes stopped off somewhere to unload all the passengers, then this requires the people monitoring the planes on radar to be part of the conspiracy.

Again, we have to ask --- instead of involving all these extra people, why not just fly the plane into the building? By adding these senseless manoevres to the conspiracy, the CTs add hundreds to the tally of conspirators.

Then there's Flight 77. Apparently, the conspirators wished to give the impression that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So they hid Flight 77 somewhere, and fired a missile disguised as a jumbo jet at the Pentagon instead. This, of course, requires lots of people to design and build a fake jumbo jet. And someone to fire it at the Pentagon.

Now, the conspirators could have dispensed with the services of all these people, and still given the impression that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon BY CRASHING FLIGHT 77 INTO THE PENTAGON. But they seem to be addicted to doing things the hard way.

So the CTs wilfully add in to the conspiracy a secret THE SIZE OF A JUMBO JET, and the people to design build it.

And so we come on to the controlled demolition. Not content with arranging one attack on the Twin Towers, the conspirators went to the trouble of arranging TWO, requiring completely different sets of technical experts. Instead of going with the claim that Evil Repulicans destroyed the Twin Towers BY CRASHING PLANES INTO THEM --- the CTs blandly double the size of the conspiracy.

There's the infamous "pull it" remark. Now, what were the conspirators thinking when they decided to delegate this bit of the conpiracy to firemen? Why not leave it in the capable hands of the people who rigged the explosives in the first place? But no, let's drag in yet another bunch of people to be complicit!

Now of course in order to make their theory PLAUSIBLE, the CTs should be hotly denying that it required the collaboration of FIREMEN, OF ALL PEOPLE. But instead, they insist on it.

And then there's the matter of clearing up the rubble of this controlled demolition. Four different firms were hired. Experts in the field, they would have surely recognised the shearing of the steel columns which would have been produced by a controlled demolition. All those people have to keep their silence.

Again, the CTs could save themselves this problem by simply claiming that Evil Republicans crashed planes into the towers, CAUSING THEM TO COLLAPSE. But no, instead let's add another few hundred collaborators.

And then the CTs make even more trouble for themselves by insisting that the fake collapse was a CLUMSY fake. Instead of making the towers collapse in such a way that they looked like towers collapsing, the conspiracy chose instead to destroy them in a way that the discerning can recognise as a controlled demolition.

Having done that, the conspirators merely need to coerce, blackmail and intimidate tens of thousands of technical experts in construction and demolition for the rest of their lives.

And more structural engineers graduate every year. Hundreds of them. FOREVER.

Now if the CTs really have their little hearts set on the use of explosives to bring down the towers, then why not say that the fake collapse was a GOOD fake which FOOLED the experts? But no: instead they require thousands of people to be coerced into silence.

By this point the conspiracy blackmailing and monitoring so many thousands of people that the number of people required just to do all the coercion is itself significant. People don't just blackmail themselves.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Perhaps the blackmailers blackmail each other.

And finally there are the CTs who wish to drag in every other violent event of the past century --- Oklahoma City, the shooting of Malcom X, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now the conspiracy is not just enormous but has been HANDED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION. Without anyone talking.

The CTs' mistake, I think, is this. They suppose that the more aspects of 9/11 they argue to be bogus, the more weight this adds to their conspiracy theory. But in order to argue that any particular aspect of the incident was fake, they need to add another dozen or hundred or thousand people to the conspiracy. The result of this is that their theory now requires THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE as willing or unwilling collaborators than would be required simply to crash the planes and blame it on a bunch of Arabs. And it requires the conspirators to involve all these extra people just, it would seem, for the heck of it. We have fake terrorists, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake radar records, fake seismographic records, fake jumbo jets, fake building collapses, fake body parts, fake forensic evidence, and fake expert opinions --- and of all these ONLY THE FAKE TERRORISTS are actually necessary to produce a fake terrorist attack. All the other fakes seem to have been put into the conspiracy just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.Yes, but, as BBro256 said:
People can state accounting principles as to why someone would not prosper from this, eyewitness accounts, video footage, Photoshop, why there is no footage of the Pentagon attack, except for one video, only one, how long it takes to wire a building with explosives, someone is prospering by merchandising 911, etc.....

But they are overlooking one fact. The USA has very good intelligence gathering, and has for years. We could put a man on the moon (???) develop weapons to annihilate millions in seconds, but yet we could not prevent 911?QED

[geggy]

Aww jeez...

From NORAD official report:
United Airlines Flight 175 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notificationto NEADS0843

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11)0846

Fighters Airborne0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2)0902 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Locationapprox 8 min****/71 miles

http://www.standdown.net/noradseptember182001pressrelease.htm

Three years later in the sept 11 commission report:
Military Notification and Response. The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03.The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

[Belz...]

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.

Yep. Enter the mind of the religious nut.

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.

No you don't. You just spew out the same crap over and over again, even when it's been shown wrong. You're either trying to convince US, or yourself.

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

Who gives a hoot about your IQ ?

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.

No. You DID say it looked like a controlled demolition. Are you backing down from your original assertion ?

And if you are, how do you explain the fact that you think it looks like it was done deliberately if it DOESN'T look controlled ?

[geggy]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

[Belz...]

If I didn't know how to think crticially then I would've swallowed the bs that were laid out in the sept 11 commission report while reading it, which I doubt any of you actually read.

Well isn't that a nice way to turn it around to your advantage ?

Problem is, I don't think you don't think "critically" as in, you critique the official story. But you're simply not a good investigator, and your logic is flawed, that's all.

If you guys are looking for sponsors for your little movie, I'm sure the bush admin will be more than willing to help with the funding...

Just saying more bad things about the hypothetical evil Bush administration doesn't make it so.

[geggy]

*bburrrrppp*

[Regnad Kcin]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top
You can "say" it all you like, but figments of your imagination do not constitute proof.

[Regnad Kcin]

chipmunk stew kindly quoted this (presumably from another forum) in post 3102 above:

People can state accounting principles as to why someone would not prosper from this, eyewitness accounts, video footage, Photoshop, why there is no footage of the Pentagon attack, except for one video, only one, how long it takes to wire a building with explosives, someone is prospering by merchandising 911, etc.....

But they are overlooking one fact. The USA has very good intelligence gathering, and has for years. We could put a man on the moon (???) develop weapons to annihilate millions in seconds, but yet we could not prevent 911?I'd be embarrassed to display such ignorance, but that's just me I guess.

[60hzxtl]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

I would use the phrase, "Very Unique!" but I don't think you'd get it.

Or maybe the phrase "The same, only different." sums it up.

But just a few spaces down, we find that geggy is reduced to a bubble of CO-2.

[60hzxtl]

I know what an explosion sounds like, but to implosions go moob?

[Mojo]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the topSo it didn't look like a controlled demolition, and you're taking this as evidence that it was a controlled demolition carried out in a special way so as to make it look as if it wasn't a controlled demolition?

Ever heard of William of Ockham?

[NoZed Avenger]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

So it does not resemble a controlled demolition, right?

[Tirdun]

Aww jeez...

From NORAD official report:
Three years later in the sept 11 commission report:

And? The Commission report mentions the Otis 0846 scramble, in response to AA11.

0838: NEADS is notified of AA11
0846: Otis Scramble
0846: AA11 hits WTC1
0853: Otis Airborne
0903: UA175 hits WTC2
0915: NEADS is notified of UA175

So at 0853 there are 2 F-15 eagles in the air leaving Otis AFB. WTC1 has already been hit. Ignoring the muddled information (they were still looking for AA11 even after its been destroyed), UA175 is 10-11 minutes from hitting WTC2. The F-15s are 153 miles away.

At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.118

F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.

Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.

In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.

[aggle-rithm]

One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.

......

The CTs' mistake, I think, is this. They suppose that the more aspects of 9/11 they argue to be bogus, the more weight this adds to their conspiracy theory. But in order to argue that any particular aspect of the incident was fake, they need to add another dozen or hundred or thousand people to the conspiracy. The result of this is that their theory now requires THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE as willing or unwilling collaborators than would be required simply to crash the planes and blame it on a bunch of Arabs. And it requires the conspirators to involve all these extra people just, it would seem, for the heck of it. We have fake terrorists, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake radar records, fake seismographic records, fake jumbo jets, fake building collapses, fake body parts, fake forensic evidence, and fake expert opinions --- and of all these ONLY THE FAKE TERRORISTS are actually necessary to produce a fake terrorist attack. All the other fakes seem to have been put into the conspiracy just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.

Very well put. The CT's profess to a sort of reverse Ockham's razor, in which the more entities are added, the more likely there is a massive conspiracy at work...in fact, it is even MORE massive than previously thought! That is why their story is unfalsifiable, and therefore not worth the time and effort they squander on it.

I wish I wasn't forced to squander so much time on it. But it's like a train wreck, ya know? You just can't look away. :(

[Gravy]

Aww jeez...
From NORAD official report:
Three years later in the sept 11 commission report:

Geggy, I apologize. I didn't read your post carefully and foolishly chastised you over the wrong issue.

You're still wrong.

When you became suspicious of the discrapancy in times between NORAD and the FAA, what did you do? Did you look into it? No you decided something was fishy. Obviously evidence of a conspiracy there. geggy, we've known since 2001 that NORAD's timeline was off. How do we know that the FAA's timeline is correct, and that the fighters, which were in a holding pattern offshore in military airspace, did not have time to intercept flight 175?

Because all of the FAA transmissions were recorded.

None of the NEADS transmissions were.

You know those numbers after practically every paragraph in the 9/11 Commission report? Those are called footnotes. You ahould check them out sometime.

[Gravy]

Very well put. The CT's profess to a sort of reverse Ockham's razor, in which the more entities are added, the more likely there is a massive conspiracy at work...in fact, it is even MORE massive than previously thought!

That's it! Dr. Adequate and aggle have hit on something important here, and I think we need a name for it. Ockham's kaleidoscope?

I got an email from a fellow who's got a fun website and a snazzy link to my critique: http://www.perrylogan.org/

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445f4e687492b.jpg

[Gravy]

A great list of links, linked to from Perry Logan's site:

Tired of angry white guys with IQ's in the mid-80's pretending to be engineers,
telling you how 9/11 was an inside job?

Try these links from PublicEye:

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or "controlled demolition?"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was "pulled" down intentionally by some official order?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://www.asce.org/responds/

More information:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf

YET MORE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/wtc/wtc.html
http://www.newhaven.edu/show.asp?durki=1185
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

An article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Here's a colloquium of engineers discussing the fall of the WTC towers.* They're all too dumb to see the bombs:
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/Outreach/Conferences/wtc.htm

A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse

Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
Oh, what the heck.*** Here's some more...

On WTC7:
http://www.americanlaboratory.com/articles/al/a0212mar.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/
http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-construction/great_buildings_wtc/WTC_GBO.htm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final%20NCSTAC%202004%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html

This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

[kookbreaker]

Tortured Animals?

[azazal]

A great list of links, linked to from Perry Logan's site:

Snipping the list of sites PS, beautiful

Gravy, incase I haven't said it in the past few days, you are the man.

[Dr Adequate]

Time to update "9/11 coverup", I think.

[DavidJames]

Snipping the list of sites PS, beautiful

Gravy, incase I haven't said it in the past few days, you are the man.Not so fast there. geggy showed us a link showing a possible, partial email from a structural engineer, maybe, from Texas, allegedly, without a name.

And you expect those links can trump that? :rolleyes:

:D

[Gravy]

Tortured Animals?
I also scratched my head over that statement, but I don't want to bring attention to it because I don't need the competition from PETA. i posted the link to my critique on that forum and was accused of being an "agent," but no one said "because you're an agent I'm strangling this puppy." Maybe what Logan meant is that we're animals and the CTists are torturing us.

[Pardalis]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

Thanks for clearing that one out, but it still doesn't make any sense. Do you have any evidence that there was a controlled-demolition-that-didn't-look-like-a-normal-demolition-so-that-it-would-look-like-a-collapse-from-the-top-but-wasn't?

[Gravy]

Not so fast there. geggy showed us a link showing a possible, partial email from a structural engineer, maybe, from Texas, allegedly, without a name.

And you expect those links can trump that? :rolleyes:

:D
That's good enough for me. CD it is.

[aggle-rithm]

That's it! Dr. Adequate and aggle have hit on something important here, and I think we need a name for it. Ockham's kaleidoscope?

[/CENTER]

I was thinking "Ockham's Play-Doh", to emphasize the point of more stuff being stuck on the outside of it.

Or:
Ockham's Spackle
Ockham's Gum-wad
Ockham's Toilet-Blockage

etc.

[Pardalis]

A great list of links, linked to from Perry Logan's site:

Geggy, can you actually believe all these people are in on the conspiracy?:boggled:

Thanks for over loading my bookmark page Gravy;)

[chipmunk stew]

I was thinking "Ockham's Play-Doh", to emphasize the point of more stuff being stuck on the outside of it.

Or:
Ockham's Spackle
Ockham's Gum-wad
Ockham's Toilet-Blockage

etc.How 'bout Occam's Bowling Ball?

As in: "He's as sharp as a bowling ball."

[Gravy]

I was thinking "Ockham's Play-Doh", to emphasize the point of more stuff being stuck on the outside of it.

Or:
Ockham's Spackle
Ockham's Gum-wad
Ockham's Toilet-Blockage

etc.
"Ockham's Play-Doh Toilet Wad Ball" just about covers it.

[Manny]

I also scratched my head over that statement, but I don't want to bring attention to it because I don't need the competition from PETA. i posted the link to my critique on that forum and was accused of being an "agent," but no one said "because you're an agent I'm strangling this puppy." Maybe what Logan meant is that we're animals and the CTists are torturing us.There's a lot on that page which isn't materially less out there than the CTers. I guess you can't stop the guy from linking you, but I think this is a case were you can be glad you don't have a web page of your own lest you feel pressured to return the favor.

[aggle-rithm]

How 'bout Occam's Bowling Ball?

As in: "He's as sharp as a bowling ball."

You know how a snowball gets bigger and bigger as it rolls downhill?

"Ockham's Snowball".

[Pardalis]

geggy, I've just uncovered some evidence that the US is planning on spliting Africa in two to make Somalia pay for the 1993 killings of US soldiers. Any thoughts on it geggy?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,405947,00.html

[Gravy]

You know how a snowball gets bigger and bigger as it rolls downhill?

"Ockham's Snowball".
(Doing his best Merv Griffin) Ooooooh! That's good!

[Gravy]

There's a lot on that page which isn't materially less out there than the CTers. I guess you can't stop the guy from linking you, but I think this is a case were you can be glad you don't have a web page of your own lest you feel pressured to return the favor.

I really got a kick out of that site. It's entertaining, and there is good info for those who want it. Clearly not meant for fence-sitters. Dozens of animated Ann Coulters? Sure, why not?

[bob_kark]

Wow, you go away for a little while and there's always a nice novel to read when you come back...

Thanks for the impressive list of links Gravy, my favorites list is tearing at the seams.

[Pardalis]

I love this part from the Perry Logan's site Gravy linked to us:

Imagine the planners of 9/11 sitting around a table, cooking up their scheme...

Planner One says, "Uh...we could make it look like fires brought down the towers. Let's throw in WTC7, too. Hu-hu-hu-hu!"

"You idiot!" snarls Planner Two. "That would be unprecedented in history! It would give the whole plan away! AARRGHH!"

(Planner Two smacks Planner One upside the head many times for suggesting such a stupid plan. And rightly so.)

[Hellbound]

I think we all missed something in guggy's quote from the report:
Military Notification and Response. The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03.The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Bolding mine.

First report of the second aircraft, not first report of any aircraft.

[Gravy]

I think we all missed something in guggy's quote from the report:


Bolding mine.

First report of the second aircraft, not first report of any aircraft.

Yes. See my reply here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1624474&postcount=3116

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey guys, great stuff in this thread. Excellent debunking of the truthseeker cult. It's taken me over a week to read this mammoth thread after having it pointed out on the now defunct United 93 message boards. Now that I've finally finished reading it, I just had a couple comments I wanted to make.

"Professor" Steven Jones and Christ in America

Like "Professor" Jones, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I too believe that Jesus visited the ancient ancestors of the Aztecs, Mayans and others. So too, are the members of the Brigham Young University department of Civil Engineering, all of whom have discredited Jones's work.

Especially offensive to me as a Lattery-Day Saint, was Jones, with the same breath that he invoked the heroes of mormon scripture, claiming that he had been approached by individuals working for government agencies ostensibly for the pourpose of silencing him. If Jones is full of crap (as we know him to be) then there is no motivation for anyone involved in the mythical 9-11 conspiracy to be making attempts to silence him, he is therefore LYING bout being stalked by these shadowy agents. And by his lies, he is slandering our faith.

"Professor" Jones is a quack, blindly stumbling through an ethical minefiled that is more likely to blow up in his face than provide him the 15 minutes of fame that is his obvious true objective. His scientific incompetence and moral failings are an issue seperate from our religious beliefs.

Alternative Conspiracies

As a sidebar to the arguments involving the staggering size and complexity of the alleged 9-11 "false flag" conspiracy, one has to wonder if any smaller and more effective alternatives were considered by our hypothetical plotters?

Why did they not, for example, think to spray a New York mosque with plutonium dust, wait for those who attend services there to start reporting to local hospitals en masse with advanced radiation sickness (this to estblish that the bomb was stored there) and then detonate a plutonium trigger (just the trigger, not a full bomb) in central park? It would kill a lot of people, leave the real valuable real estate untouched, give Bush his blank check, and provide treasure trove of easily exploitable propaganda images. And the whole thing could have been done with less than a dozen men.

Or... how about having a small number of 155 mm artillery shells manufactured to Iraqi specs, have iraqi markings engraved on them and have them filled with VX, sarin or whatever strikes the conspirators fancy. Have them transported to midtown Manhattan and opened up in the middle of rush hour. After the attack is mostly over, while there are thousands of government/military/law enforcement personnel running around in NBC suits cleaning up the mess, have secret agents of the conspiracy toss a couple arab bodies on the pile with long winded suicide notes in thier pockets. Again, this could be done withe less than a dozen men, minimizing the chance of discovery.

A secret cabal operating within the US government could have raised twice the hell with half the effort if they really wanted to. It seems logical that this "star chamber" group, assuming it exists, did not want to do such a thing at all.

Graphis Filter issue with Gravy's CT rebuttal

I read through the original PDF version of Gravy's Loose Change guide and enjoyed it a great deal. However, I'm having problems with the latest version. Every time I try to open it, I get "Unble to load graphics conversion filter" errors and the window self-terminates.

Does anyone know any workarounds for this or how to fix it?

[CptColumbo]

Thanks for coming by Sword of Truth and giving us another perspective on the issue.

As I wrote earlier, one of my fears is that historians and investigators will now have to make their way through all the fabrications and lies, made by people who just want to be quoted by someone else or profit from the disaster, to find out what really happened. For example, the Mark Hofmann affair in Salt Lake City, and his disruption of any look at the history of the LDS Church, some of his documents may have been genuine, but now they all have to be questioned because of his forgeries.

[Ersby]

However, I'm having problems with the latest version. Every time I try to open it, I get "Unble to load graphics conversion filter" errors and the window self-terminates.

Does anyone know any workarounds for this or how to fix it?
I got that when I tried to open it with WordPad. What program are you using?

[Belz...]

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 (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

And since basically no demo of this type has been done before, you're in no position to argue what it looks like.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Columbo - With regards to the historical authenticity of LDS doctrines, I'm afraid that's something that you will not get an unbiased debate from me on. I am very much a "true believer" in the church.

But that being the case, I do know the difference between solid proof and heartfelt faith. The behavior of the conspiracy nuts when confronted with actual proof of what happened on 9-11 strikes me as an entirely "faith-based" reaction. Being a man of faith, I know quite well when faith alone is dictating someones responses.

Ersby - I'm using Wordpad, like you.

[Ersby]

Ersby - I'm using Wordpad, like you.Okay, well, there's your problem.

I'm using someone elses computer in these days, and it's someone who's never bothered to get a decent WP. So in the end I opened it with NotePad, then selected all, cutted and pasted it into Word Pad, and then read that. Unfortunately, you lose the graphics, but since you have the pdf that's no big deal. Most of the links and formatting is lost too however and you have to put up with a lot of weird stuff here and there, but the text is intact. It's the best I could do. If anyone knows another way, I'm all ears.

[RSLancastr]

But that being the case, I do know the difference between solid proof and heartfelt faith. The behavior of the conspiracy nuts when confronted with actual proof of what happened on 9-11 strikes me as an entirely "faith-based" reaction. Being a man of faith, I know quite well when faith alone is dictating someones responses.Maybe the Loose Change crowd have a "burning in the busom?"

Welcome to the thread, SoT!

[CptColumbo]

Sword-I didn't mean it as an attack. If you took it that way, I'm sorry. I was just using that incident, one you might be familiar with, as an example. If anyone in the LDS Church or outside it wishes to study it's history, they have to now take these false leads into account. Hofmann also planted forgeries of autographed first editions, of Mark Twain and Poe. His motivation is unclear, money seemed to be the biggest, but prestige was also there. Some speculate about revenge, but it is only speculation.

[Gravy]

Okay, well, there's your problem.

I'm using someone elses computer in these days, and it's someone who's never bothered to get a decent WP. So in the end I opened it with NotePad, then selected all, cutted and pasted it into Word Pad, and then read that. Unfortunately, you lose the graphics, but since you have the pdf that's no big deal. Most of the links and formatting is lost too however and you have to put up with a lot of weird stuff here and there, but the text is intact. It's the best I could do. If anyone knows another way, I'm all ears.

Chipmunk Stew had posted a possible fixes here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1620032&postcount=2917

If you like I just made an HTML version. It loses a little bit of formatting, but the graphics and links should work. It's under 1 Mb. I can email you if you like.
-G

[Ersby]

It's under 1 Mb. I can email you if you like.
-GCheck yr PM. Thanks.

[Gravy]

(snip)
A secret cabal operating within the US government could have raised twice the hell with half the effort if they really wanted to. It seems logical that this "star chamber" group, assuming it exists, did not want to do such a thing at all.

Graphis Filter issue with Gravy's CT rebuttal

I read through the original PDF version of Gravy's Loose Change guide and enjoyed it a great deal. However, I'm having problems with the latest version. Every time I try to open it, I get "Unble to load graphics conversion filter" errors and the window self-terminates.

Does anyone know any workarounds for this or how to fix it?

Welcome aboard. Here you can use both the sword, for slaying myths, and the plowshare, for sowing the seeds of truth.

See my last post for possible fixes to the graphics problem.

You know, I had thought that the idea of Jesus visiting the Americas was a Steven Jones invention. Is that a standard LDS teaching?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I didn't take your comments as an attack, I was just pointing out that I do understand when faith is guiding my responses more than proof.

And I agree with your assesment of the effects of Hoffman's fraudulent and homocidal rampage. For a man who claimed he was out to destroy the church, he ended up giving us the perfect escape hatch for intellectually lazy defenders of mormonism.

As for Steven Jones, when he started saying that he had been bribed and threatened by people he refused to name. That just made the needle on my BS-o-meter twitch.

[Gravy]

Sword_Of_Truth, do you happen to live in Salt Lake County? If so, I'm dying to know about this new Steven Jones presentation. I emailed him about it but haven't heard back.

24 May 2006
Lecture: "Solar Cookers and the 9/11 Disasters"
by Prof Steven Jones
7:00 PM, Salt Lake Community College
Free Enterprise Building Room 101
9750 S 300 W, Sandy, UT 84070

[senorpogo]

As for Steven Jones, when he started saying that he had been bribed and threatened by people he refused to name. That just made the needle on my BS-o-meter twitch.

Every time I hear about various conspiracy kooks getting threatened by unnamed people (government employees no doubt), I think of this exchange from an episode of Seinfeld -

J:Give me some idea of what you think it could be.

G:I don't know if you're ready for it. I believe that I am about to become the target of a systematic process of intimidation and manipulation, the likes of which you have never -

J:Hold it.You're right, I'm not ready for this.

[CptColumbo]

This whole thing is motivating me to unpack, from my recent move, so I can find my personal pictures of Ground Zero and my chemistry/metalurgy/engineering books.

[Pardalis]

Every time I hear about various conspiracy kooks getting threatened by unnamed people (government employees no doubt), I think of this exchange from an episode of Seinfeld -

J:Give me some idea of what you think it could be.

G:I don't know if you're ready for it. I believe that I am about to become the target of a systematic process of intimidation and manipulation, the likes of which you have never -

J:Hold it.You're right, I'm not ready for this.

I think about this one too:

Kramer enters.

Kramer: Well, I got gonorrhea.

Elaine: That seems about right.

Kramer: That's what they gave me.

George: They? The Government?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword_Of_Truth, do you happen to live in Salt Lake County? If so, I'm dying to know about this new Steven Jones presentation. I emailed him about it but haven't heard back.

I live in Edmonton in the frozen canadian north. Living in areas where mormons are a distinct minority tends to breed saner mormons. ;)

As for Jones saying the Men in Black are after him, go to google video, type "Steven E Jones" as your search words and it will be the video with the RED introductory text. It's a 52 minute video, but Jones starts BSing about the MIB's right at the beginning. I tried to link the video here, but apperantly I need to post 15 times first.

And yes, Christs visit to the americas is a standard LDS teaching. But as I said, it's an issue of faith more than one that can be proven. As God himself said in that other great scripture; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." Faith and proof each have thier place and shouldn't be confused with eachother.

Events like 9-11 wich were recorded by 10,000 video cameras simply aren't open to faith based interpretation.

[Pardalis]

Faith and proof each have thier place and shouldn't be confused with eachother.

Amen to that;)

[Gravy]

I live in Edmonton in the frozen canadian north. Living in areas where mormons are a distinct minority tends to breed saner mormons. ;)

As for Jones saying the Men in Black are after him, go to google video, type "Steven E Jones" as your search words and it will be the video with the RED introductory text. It's a 52 minute video, but Jones starts BSing about the MIB's right at the beginning. I tried to link the video here, but apperantly I need to post 15 times first.

And yes, Christs visit to the americas is a standard LDS teaching. But as I said, it's an issue of faith more than one that can be proven. As God himself said in that other great scripture; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." Faith and proof each have thier place and shouldn't be confused with eachother.

Events like 9-11 wich were recorded by 10,000 video cameras simply aren't open to faith based interpretation.
:)
Here's the link to that Jones video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6023596331085044923&q=steven+E.+Jones

He looks harmless, and he's very soft-spoken, so why do I want to kick his ass?

Due to popular demand, here's a link to a PDF of my Looser critique. Remember, the web links won't work.
http://media2.uploadjar.com/file.php?file=uploads/loose_change_critique.pdf

[Pardalis]

He looks harmless, and he's very soft-spoken, so why do I want to kick his ass?

You don't have to rant about loudly in german to be a madman.;)

[RSLancastr]

I live in Edmonton in the frozen canadian north. Living in areas where mormons are a distinct minority tends to breed saner mormons. ;)

SoT, I showed this quote to a Mormon buddy, knowing he would appreciate it.

He was born and raised in So Cal, but attended BYU (he's quite an admirer of Hugh Nibley's work), and we've often talked about the differences between the Mormon religion and the Mormon culture (such as in Salt Lake).

He says that when he meets a Mormon, he can pretty much immediately tell whether or not they were raised where Mormons are in the majority.

[Ersby]

http://media2.uploadjar.com/file.php?file=uploads/loose_change_critique.pdfBut don't right-click and save as which is what I tried at first. Click it and you'll go to a page where, in the middle (in tiny letters) is the link you want to use Save as.

[karim]

Chipmunk stew wrote:

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?

I was using the name "max lag" on that forum. I have read some of this thread and it is nice to see that there are some reasonable people even in the internet. I salute Gravy for he's effort.


Well, I've been thinking of making a film from al-Qaida's point of view, since like many other martyrs, few of the 911 hijackers video taped thier last wills.


Anyway, if you want to see Osama write with he's right hand and praise Muhammad Atta and so on, check my previous film:

.izdahara.tk
(I'm not allowed to post links, so just ad the www)

[Pardalis]

Talk about soft-spoken madmen...

Nice film Karim. Some of the interviews I have never seen before!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

:)
Here's the link to that Jones video *URL SNIPPED*

He looks harmless, and he's very soft-spoken, so why do I want to kick his ass?

Because spewing enemy propaganda in a time of war does that to people? ;)

That's exactly the video I was talking about. To give you some further perspective and perhaps to give a better impression on how big a hole Jones is digging for himself I should explain a few things about what is happening there.

Given how heavily Jones is thumping the Book of Mormon (all the names and events he is discussing are taken from the BoM) my guess is that he is addressing an almost exclusively mormon audience. Furthermore (if you'll forgive me borrowing a phrase from Geggy), my gut says that gathering is taking place inside a mormon chapel or stake center. It's just the basic architectural style of the room that I'm basing this on so I can't be certain. Alot of it also depends on where he got the permission to use church property (wether it's a house of worship or on the campus of the church owned university).

The mormon church, despite the stranglehold the republican party (or it's closest philosphical equivelants here in Canada) has over the mormon vote, is very careful to distance itself from actual politicians, candidates or parties. The church is also very careful about how it's name and image are used in public in general. I myself ran for elective office up here in Alberta Canada several years back and when I did, my Bishop at the time cautioned me on what I could say inside the church so as not to violate church policy and drag the church publicly into an election campaign.

Jones isn't the first darling of the conspiracists to publicly tread dangerously close to abusing his standing in the church to artificially inflate his credibility. Colonel Bo Gritz was expelled from the LDS church for various public statements including claiming that the leaders of the LDS church had endorsed his bid for the presidency of the United States.

Now, back to Jones... if I m correct, that he is using his position in the church and church property to advocate a political position (and there's just no way in hell that this ain't political) then he is violating the churches policy. Professorships at BYU don't work the way they do in other universities. Like all paid employees of the church, Jones is required to live according to the teachings of the church. Lying about threats and bribes from government agents and using his position at a church owned institution to attack elected officials without supporting evidence is a great for him to get himself fired.

Again, this is mostly speculation on my part. But knowing that neither science nor the actual engineers at his university are behind him makes the rest of his claims shaky at best.

[RSLancastr]

Like all paid employees of the church, Jones is required to live according to the teachings of the church. Lying about threats and bribes from government agents and using his position at a church owned institution to attack elected officials without supporting evidence is a great for him to get himself fired.My Mormon friend said much the same thing.

Of course, if this happens, Jones will likely blame it on the conspiracy.

But then, he will have been fired by MIB (Mormons In BYU). :D

[Polaris]

Yes, that's on the last page.Did you get the rest of it?

No, that's the only part of it I got. I'll try again.

[senorpogo]

My Mormon friend said much the same thing.

Of course, if this happens, Jones will likely blame it on the conspiracy.

But then, he will have been fired by MIB (Mormons In BYU). :D

I love when a kook hassles institution X because they believe that institution X is hassling them. Finally, institution X starts hassling them in response to their hassling and the kook says, "HA! Told you institution X was hassling me!"

Self-fulfilling idiocy

[Polaris]

That's it! Dr. Adequate and aggle have hit on something important here, and I think we need a name for it. Ockham's kaleidoscope?

I got an email from a fellow who's got a fun website and a snazzy link to my critique: http://www.perrylogan.org/

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790445f4e687492b.jpg

I'll pass on that site. Guy's too much of an anti-gun-owner bigot for my tastes. I'd like to see him call Wyatt Earp a coward to his face.

[hellaeon]

You know how a snowball gets bigger and bigger as it rolls downhill?

"Ockham's Snowball".

I dunno...Occams Fallacy

Occams Nard
Occams Idiocy
Blunt Occams Razor
Occams Shaver
Occams Tickler
Occams Rusty Razor

[Stellafane]

I dunno...Occams Fallacy

Occams Nard
Occams Idiocy
Blunt Occams Razor
Occams Shaver
Occams Tickler
Occams Rusty Razor

Occam's Nose Hair Remover?

[RSLancastr]

I dunno...Occams Fallacy

Occams Nard
Occams Idiocy
Blunt Occams Razor
Occams Shaver
Occams Tickler
Occams Rusty RazorOccam's Razor After His Girlfriend Borrowed it and Shaved Her Legs With It Several Times.

[RSLancastr]

Occam's Spatula

[senorpogo]

Occam's Hot Glue Gun

[hellaeon]

hahaha! the best part of this thread is how much more stupid the conspiracy gets. Geggy has now said that its a CD made to not look like CD. I mean hahahaha what can you honestly say? He is back to square one. I mean how cool, not only have the CT crowd started to give up on the CD theory, instead they are now changing it to be a CD made to not look like a CD, but of course...they know this based on the evidence they used when it was an obvious CD but isn't now...

The saga begins again as there theory changes again.

Funny stuff

[CptColumbo]

Occam's sack full of wet mice.

[CptColumbo]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=682&st=30

This is the latest reason to doubt the Popular Mechanics Article. It explains an awful lot. :)

[kookbreaker]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=682&st=30

This is the latest reason to doubt the Popular Mechanics Article. It explains an awful lot. :)

Pwah. Somebody obviously has never tried to work with hemp paper. :D Hearst had nothing to worry about, beleive me.

[hellaeon]

I thought the whole hemp thing was squashed after WW2 by dupont?

ahhh more people to silence!

[HidariMak]

Okay, well, there's your problem.

I'm using someone elses computer in these days, and it's someone who's never bothered to get a decent WP. So in the end I opened it with NotePad, then selected all, cutted and pasted it into Word Pad, and then read that. Unfortunately, you lose the graphics, but since you have the pdf that's no big deal. Most of the links and formatting is lost too however and you have to put up with a lot of weird stuff here and there, but the text is intact. It's the best I could do. If anyone knows another way, I'm all ears.

You could use OpenOffice to view the file as well. It's a completely free, open source office suite which offers the functionality of and the compatibility with Microsoft Office. I don't have the link on hand, but there's even a variant out there which you could run from a PenDrive if they can't/won't want it installed on their PC.

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but just do a search on OpenOffice through Google, and it should be the very first link.

[Dr Adequate]

If Dylan Avery had made JFK ...

* The "limousine" JFK was riding in was really a hovercraft disguised as a limousine.

* Halfway through the motorcade, it was diverted to Cleveland where everyone in it was replaced by animatronic robots.

* The Book Depository wasn't a real building but a large cardboard facade erected so that "Oswald" would have somewhere to "shoot" from.

* Lee Harvey Oswald never actually existed. All supposed images of him were produced by the Walt Disney Corporation.

* No bullets were in fact fired. Kennedy's head was rigged with explosives and destroyed in a controlled demolition.

* The Zapruder footage clearly shows squibs coming out of JFK's head.

* Someone tangentially connected with the assassination once used the word "pull", which is tantamount to a signed and sealed confession that he made JFK's head explode.

* Jacqueline Kennedy was really a man.

[shuize]

Occam's Suppository.

[CptColumbo]

You forgot about the sounds of explosions being reported, instead of gunfire.

[TjW]

Well, I'm not sure why Occam should take the blame, but maybe...
Occam's Katamari?

You NEVER throw anything away, you just keep rolling it up bigger and bigger...

[kookbreaker]

I thought the whole hemp thing was squashed after WW2 by dupont?


A surprising amount of reasonable people beleive the Dupont/Hearst hemp conspiracy nonsense, sad to say.

[CurtC]

Everyone who's been here a while will remember Carlos, latinjral, and their "paranormal hat." For newcomers, these two posted here a couple of years ago in a thread that was probably as long as this one, claiming that a video they had of the Twin Towers on 9/11 showed some high-speed anomaly. It was obvious to everyone with a brain, but these two thought that it was something paranormal. In one frame, the blurred image was vaguely hat-shaped, so got the term "paranormal hat" applied to it.

Well, guess what. This thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3812) over at the LC forum makes the same exact claim, but with a different video. Right after flight 175 crashes into the South Tower, a bird flies across the foreground, and from that perspective it's right across the image of the South Tower.

I would post over there explaining this to them, but alas, I've been banned. Well, suspended for two months. After a PM conversation with TheQuest, reminding him that I've always been sincere and not insulting, he sends me this note: "Curtc, sorry I renegged. I just can't have you wasting our time here. Most people here 'get it' rather quickly. For all I know, you may be a purposeful time-waster or just a honest "slow" person. Either way, we need to advance with activism and we can waste no more time on you right now. Nothing personal. Just business. I am suspending you for 60 days or at least long enough so that we can get some things accomplished."

So truth gets the shaft in favor of "just business."

[Regnad Kcin]

I would've responded to that PM with a hearty "Seig Heil!" But that's just me.

[Stellafane]

I would post over there explaining this to them, but alas, I've been banned. Well, suspended for two months. After a PM conversation with TheQuest, reminding him that I've always been sincere and not insulting, he sends me this note: "Curtc, sorry I renegged. I just can't have you wasting our time here. Most people here 'get it' rather quickly. For all I know, you may be a purposeful time-waster or just a honest "slow" person. Either way, we need to advance with activism and we can waste no more time on you right now. Nothing personal. Just business. I am suspending you for 60 days or at least long enough so that we can get some things accomplished."

Whoa! That kind of thinking, the absolute conviction that one's beliefs are so obviously and unquestionably true that no other views should even be allowed to be uttered, is exactly the sort of thing that drives people to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If Dylan Avery had made JFK ...
* No bullets were in fact fired. Kennedy's head was rigged with explosives and destroyed in a controlled demolition.

This is the part where I lol'ed.

I could go post on LC, but I'm afraid someone would recognize my name from my last pre-shutdown rampage on the United 93 boards (I chose this name mostly to yank the chains of easily offended CT's who wouldn't like someone using the word "Truth" without thier say-so).

[Pardalis]

"Curtc, sorry I renegged. I just can't have you wasting our time here. Most people here 'get it' rather quickly. For all I know, you may be a purposeful time-waster or just a honest "slow" person. Either way, we need to advance with activism and we can waste no more time on you right now. Nothing personal. Just business. I am suspending you for 60 days or at least long enough so that we can get some things accomplished."

So truth gets the shaft in favor of "just business."

(emphasis mine)

Man, these guys are starting to sound like terrorist survivalists. I'm starting to worry...

[TjW]

Whoa! That kind of thinking, the absolute conviction that one's beliefs are so obviously and unquestionably true that no other views should even be allowed to be uttered, is exactly the sort of thing that drives people to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

Perhaps it's the reason they're able to identify with and believe in the bizarre and ultimately counterproductive behaviors hypothesized in the various CTs.
It's the sort of thing they would do, if they had the power.

[WildCat]

Posting Gravy's document on the looser forum is now a bannable offense (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3557). :D

Must be working!:cool:

[NobbyNobbs]

(emphasis mine)

Man, these guys are starting to sound like terrorist survivalists. I'm starting to worry...

Don't worry. Do you honestly think they are doing anything other than patting each other on their backs on the LC forum, showing pride over their advanced intelligence and abilities to see through the most complicated conspiracies?

Heck, I'm still banned for the next few days, and all I did was ask what the rules about banning were.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Heck, I'm still banned for the next few days, and all I did was ask what the rules about banning were.The first rule of Ban Club: You do not talk about Ban Club.

[Ramooone]

its very obvious now that the loosers have started their own cult. whenever someone goes in there asking questions this is what they reply with:

You ask a common question that can be easily addressed and debunked. I first recommend the following, watch THEN we can discuss. We must be on the same page:

www.UniversalSeed.org

pretty much they want you to be brainwashed by all the awful BS "crock-u-mentaries" on that site BEFORE discussing. hmm.. interesting.

ive been banned from that board as well, but i always want to ask them this. whenever someone asks how many people would have to be involved in the coverup, someone always answers with "they were paid off to keep quiet"

Now, how much money would it take you to live with the guilt of knowing you were part of the death and destruction of 3,000 lives?

i hit a squirrel with my car once and felt bad, imagine what would have to be going through the minds of these so called Demolitionists if they were part responsible or anyone that was involved in this. its ridiculous to think that, the loosers never put anything into perspective.

[hellaeon]

Wow...those LC guys just became even more stupid. Imagine what they would accomplish without some sense being directed at them? One can only wonder....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have an idea.

The Loose Screws crowd has theologians and economists to tell them why the WTC collapsed. And that's thier biggest problem, they have no structural engineers on thier side. Now I know you all know this already, but here's my point...

Why don't they produce thier own experts?

By that I mean literally produce thier own structural engineers. It's simple, get a bunch of them to throw 1000$ each into the education pot, pick a fresh high school grad from among them (if ever there was a movement all but deliberately designed to attract know-it-all teen punks, the truthseeker cult is it) and use the education pot to pay his way through to becoming a real live structural engineer.

How long can it take? 5, maybe 7 years or so? They have time, there's no statute of limitations on high treason, crimes against the constitution and 2,800 counts of first degree murder. They'll have thier precious structural engineer and they will finally be able to go ahead with thier case against whoever they plan to put on the indictment.

Or at least that's how it works in theory.

Wouldn't you all love to be a fly on the wall at the LC2SE (Loose Change 2 Structural Engineer) graduation party?

LC2SE: Guys, I have something to tell you... those bastards at JREF... they were right all along. You people are a bunch of friggin idiots.

Avery: And you're not?

LC2SE:Of course not... ~I~ got an education, remember?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Posting Gravy's document on the looser forum is now a bannable offense (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3557). :D

Must be working!:cool:

That was my previous... I mean, that was me before I got site-banned and could no longer access those forums. Yeah. :)

A few other posters are still referencing Gravy's work, either positively or negatively, and have yet to be banned. So it's seeping into the general consciousness.

Or so I hear.

[OMGturt1es]

from the loose change forums...

The buildings failed at the floors where trhe fire was burning. The heat warped the steel columns. Those columns have to be properly alligned. You put them out of allignment, the building collapses. The collapse of the structure above was more than the remaining structure below could withstand.

Thewre was enoguh heat in the building to warp steel. It starts to expand sufficiently at 50 F to require expansion jopints on road structures. In a fire hot enough to melt aluminum, they will expand even more, and not very evenly. Doesn't matter how much weight shifts from one column to another if both columns are warped.


lefty, to understand that 911 was an inside job, you don't need science. You need simple math.

Prior to 911, no steel framed building in history ever 'collapsed' due to fire, yet on 911, not one, not 2 but 3 steel-framed buildings 'collapsed' because of fire, Furhtermore, these buioldings were all located within a few hundred yards of each other. Further still, they all collapsed within 7 hours of each other.

Now, what are the mathematical odds of these coinciding unusual events being 'coincidence'?


i really don't even know what to say to that... :S

ANYWAYS, i may have purchased a couple fun domain names (loosescrews911.com, loosechangesucks.com), hehe, and i may be looking for some fun ideas. anyone have any fun suggestions?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Some ratbag posted Dr Adequate's rant about complexity over there:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3851&st=0#entry4258603

Let's see how long it takes them to move the thread into the troll section and ban the person who posted it. Maybe we should have some kind of sweepstakes where we guess how long it will take?

I say they nail the thread and the poster in two hours.

[CptColumbo]

Many on the LC forum seem to be asking for a De-bunking of Gravy's doc., and in their fanaticism they expect there to be one.

I'm anxious to see one too.

BTW We need more obnoxious smilies over here!

[NoZed Avenger]

Um . . . . geggy?


Helllooooo?

[Gravy]

As I said on the first page of my critique, I welcome emails with any well-researched corrections. The critique has been "out there" in one form or another since April 25, and none of the Loosers has emailed me with any corrections. I've found some small mistakes (I wrote Paul O'Neill rather than John, and wrote 3.5" rather than 3/4"), but I'm waiting to be corrected on any of those 81 errors of fact I reported on. From what I've seen, most of the Loosers never read beyond the first few pages.

[OMGturt1es]

As I said on the first page of my critique, I welcome emails with any well-researched corrections. The critique has been "out there" in one form or another since April 25, and none of the Loosers has emailed me with any corrections. I've found some small mistakes (I wrote Paul O'Neill rather than John, and wrote 3.5" rather than 3/4"), but I'm waiting to be corrected on any of those 81 errors of fact I reported on. From what I've seen, most of the Loosers never read beyond the first few pages.


yup, i've noticed that, but not just relavent to your critique; they seem to reject any evidence that does not support their position.

"its pointless you writing your long posts..i dont and never have read through any threads before posting my opinion..which is only relevant to myself..i dont care if anyone agrees with it or not..im out for myself..and always have been.
but..the OFFICIAL 911 STORY affects us all,and if it didnt happen exactly the way they claim it did..then everything they are doing right now is being done on the basis of a lie (ID CARDS,DNA TESTING,IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT TRIAL,BOMBING AFGHANISTAN,IRAQ,IRAN ETC ETC FOR **** ALL!!!)"

[geggy]

I already mentioned few times in this thread that I believe an AA77 crashed into the pentagon. Most of the debris may have delved into the ground afterall it was travelling at 530 mph when it hit. Plus, cops and firemen are regular joes like you and I so how'd you think they'd react if they saw something that wasn't a boeing or even if there wasn't anything at all?

Here's a good website of the debunking of no plane theory at the pentagon by an sept 11 activist...

http://flight77.info/old.htm

Like I said before, the real question should be asked is why fighter jets were not deployed at the time of the pentagon crash, especially after the fact NYC was first attacked 45 minutes prior to the pentagon crash.

More here at the sept 11 commission report on the AA77/AA11 confusion as if the communication between FAA, NEADS and NORAD was designed to fail...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Lastly if the white house had received numerous warnings of when, where and how bin Laden was planning an operation to hijack planes and use it as missiles to strike US landmarks, then why did wargame exercises on that morning went ahead as planned on sceduled? Was it design to confuse the FAA and NEADS as to which is real and which is fake?

[Gravy]

Lastly if the white house had received numerous warnings of when, where and how bin Laden was planning an operation to hijack planes and use it as missiles to strike US landmarks, then why did wargame exercises on that morning went ahead as planned on sceduled? Was it design to confuse the FAA and NEADS as to which is real and which is fake?
Please provide evidence that anyone in the U.S. government knew that attacks were going to happen on September 11, 2001. Not speculation, not beliefs. Evidence.

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the NORAD exercises had been going on for days before 9/11. They weren't just planned for that day. Have you read my critique of Loose Change?


ETA NORAD info

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I already mentioned few times in this thread that I believe an AA77 crashed into the pentagon. Most of the debris may have delved into the ground afterall it was travelling at 530 mph when it hit. Plus, cops and firemen are regular joes like you and I so how'd you think they'd react if they saw something that wasn't a boeing or even if there wasn't anything at all?

Here's a good website of the debunking of no plane theory at the pentagon by an sept 11 activist...

http://flight77.info/old.htm

Like I said before, the real question should be asked is why fighter jets were not deployed at the time of the pentagon crash, especially after the fact NYC was first attacked 45 minutes prior to the pentagon crash.

More here at the sept 11 commission report on the AA77/AA11 confusion as if the communication between FAA, NEADS and NORAD was designed to fail...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Lastly if the white house had received numerous warnings of when, where and how bin Laden was planning an operation to hijack planes and use it as missiles to strike US landmarks, then why did wargame exercises on that morning went ahead as planned on sceduled? Was it design to confuse the FAA and NEADS as to which is real and which is fake?

Enough with unsubstantiated question asking geggy. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1624471#post1624471

[Tirdun]

Like I said before, the real question should be asked is why fighter jets were not deployed at the time of the pentagon crash, especially after the fact NYC was first attacked 45 minutes prior to the pentagon crash.

You keep applying 20/20 hindsight to a unique situation in which multiple agencies had conflicting information, were trying to determine the safety of hundreds of aircraft, FOUR of which had actually been hijacked. You keep assuming that fighter aircraft are constantly on hot standby at USAF bases nationwide, that they can fly at top speed for an indefinite period, and that they have complete fire authority and omnipotent foreknowledge of the situation.

AA77 vanished from radar over OHIO at 0900 heading southwest. The FAA initially believed it had crashed, partly because the second WTC attack hadn't happened. NEADS believed that AA11 was headed to DC and scrambled fighters from Langley to intercept. Too late, as it turned out, to do anything about AA11 (which had already crashed) or AA77 (which they didn't see coming until too late).

The Otis AFB fighters were an abberation, not because they were so slow to react, but because they were able to react with such astonishing speed. They happened to be on standby, they were airborne in record time, they reached NYC in a snowstorm of misinformation and confusion and were sadly unable to do anything. The fighters at Langley were sent looking for an airplane that no longer existed and knew nothing of the two airplanes that were still a danger. The FAA warned NEADS at 9:34 about AA77, three minutes before it hit. The FAA notified NEADS at 10:15 that UA93 had already crashed.

You have yet to provide any reasonable evidece that the military had anything but scant minutes to react. You have yet to proved any reasonable evidence that there was any malice or true foreknowlege at any level of government.

[Shrinker]

Plus, cops and firemen are regular joes like you and I so how'd you think they'd react if they saw something that wasn't a boeing or even if there wasn't anything at all?

Plus, structural engineers and demolition experts are regular joes like you and I so how'd you think they'd react if they saw something that wasn't structural failure or even if there was evidence of demolition charges?

[Manny]

Plus, structural engineers and demolition experts are regular joes like you and I so how'd you think they'd react if they saw something that wasn't structural failure or even if there was evidence of demolition charges?And you've got the thousands and thousands of regular-joe firemen and cops who were at Ground Zero in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks, desparately digging through the rubble hoping beyond hope to find one of their brothers alive and then sifting every bit of debris looking for the tiniest bit of remains to deliver to the families of the deceased. They didn't find one detonator, not one suspicious wire, not one shred of a timer or radio receiver. In that picture of the 45-degree cut column which the Loosers claim is evidence of thermite there is a regular-joe firefighter standing right there and yet he's not out yelling that the columns were cut with thermite.

There's an awful lot of regular joes in on this if it happened, gaggy. How are we to tell whic ones were good regular joes and which were evil globalist faux regular joes?

[aggle-rithm]

Most of the debris may have delved into the ground afterall it was travelling at 530 mph when it hit.

Minor point, but according to the flight recorder it was actually travelling at less than 400.

I think the 530 figure was manufactured by the CT's to make it seem improbable that the hijacker could have controlled the flight at that speed and at ground-level air pressure.

[aggle-rithm]

There's an awful lot of regular joes in on this if it happened, gaggy. How are we to tell whic ones were good regular joes and which were evil globalist faux regular joes?

Easily explained, CT style!

When the WTC was built, a narcotic compound was mixed in with the concrete (along with the explosives, of course). Once the buildings collapsed, the narcotic floated in the air with the concrete dust, which was inhaled by the firemen and others at the cleanup site. They were thus too high to realize the significance of all the inconsistencies they saw as they performed the cleanup.

It's true! :)

[geggy]

Please provide evidence that anyone in the U.S. government knew that attacks were going to happen on September 11, 2001. Not speculation, not beliefs. Evidence.

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the NORAD exercises had been going on for days before 9/11. They weren't just planned for that day. Have you read my critique of Loose Change?


ETA NORAD info

Oh jeez. Where to begin?

Cooperativeresearch.org (which is, unfortunately, down right now) had made over 400 points with sources as back up proving the white house knew what was coming and did absolutely nothing to beef up security.

Also where was rumsfeld and w. bush, the supposedly commander in chief, on the morning of the attack?

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation's air defense was changed. NORAD's military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

[Gravy]

... evil globalist faux regular joe
I had a venti cup of that at Starbucks this morning.

[Gravy]

Oh jeez. Where to begin?

Cooperativeresearch.org (which is, unfortunately, down right now) had made over 400 points with sources as back up proving the white house knew what was coming and did absolutely nothing to beef up security.

Also where was rumsfeld and w. bush, the supposedly commander in chief, on the morning of the attack?

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation's air defense was changed. NORAD's military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

Wrong again, geggy. How many days in a row is that? I REALLY suggest that you read my critique. This stuff is all covered there.

Does ANYONE here really need to remind you that no one contacted Donald Rumsfeld before scrambling jets on 9/11?

You are a flaming idiot.

[Belz...]

lefty, to understand that 911 was an inside job, you don't need science. You need simple math.

Prior to 911, no steel framed building in history ever 'collapsed' due to fire, yet on 911, not one, not 2 but 3 steel-framed buildings 'collapsed' because of fire, Furhtermore, these buioldings were all located within a few hundred yards of each other. Further still, they all collapsed within 7 hours of each other.

:jaw-dropp

I think what these people need are basic thinking skills.

[Belz...]

Like I said before, the real question should be asked is why fighter jets were not deployed at the time of the pentagon crash, especially after the fact NYC was first attacked 45 minutes prior to the pentagon crash.

You mean you HAVEN'T read people's answers on that ?

[geggy]

Wrong again, geggy. How many days in a row is that? I REALLY suggest that you read my critique. This stuff is all covered there.

Does ANYONE here really need to remind you that no one contacted Donald Rumsfeld before scrambling jets on 9/11?

You are a flaming idiot.

Ok...I'll make this easier for you...

"We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld's actions," said Hamilton. "He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out."

http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

So he was having a plate of eggs and bakey while America was under attack. If you were first told that NYC had been attacked with planes and you were the man responsible for giving orders to deploy fighter jets, what would you do? Would you either..

1. Continue with your breakfast.
OR
2. Jump out of your seat and rush to the command center.

[Gravy]

Minor point, but according to the flight recorder it was actually travelling at less than 400.
I didn't know that. I never looked that closely into how the speeds of the planes were measured, which I why I included a disclaimer about that in my critique. I prefer to think of them all as going "really freaking fast." Now I have to check it out. Man, I wish I was a CTer and could just ignore stuff.

[Tirdun]

Ok...I'll make this easier for you...

WHAT ARE YOU BABBLING ON ABOUT?!?

Rumsfeld+bacon=controlled demolition?
Rumsfeld+bacon=government foreknowlege?
Rumsfeld+bacon=government control?
Rumsfeld+bacon=not commercial jets?

Your connect the dots logic is... staggering.

[Gravy]

Ok...I'll make this easier for you...

"We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld's actions," said Hamilton. "He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out."

http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

So he was having a plate of eggs and bakey while America was under attack. If you were first told that NYC had been attacked with planes and you were the man responsible for giving orders to deploy fighter jets, what would you do? Would you either..

1. Continue with your breakfast.
OR
2. Jump out of your seat and rush to the command center.

So you're saying that this report is wrong, and that he continued to eat breakfast after being informed of the attacks?

ETA: Oh, and I don't think you read my last post. Rumsfeld wasn't responsible for ordering fighters to scramble on 9/11. Scrambled eggs, maybe, but not fighters.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I didn't know that. I never looked that closely into how the speeds of the planes were measured, which I why I included a disclaimer about that in my critique. I prefer to think of them all as going "really freaking fast." Now I have to check it out. Man, I wish I was a CTer and could just ignore stuff.

One of the saner Loosers stated that the 530mph figure came from the 9/11 inquiry, and was an estimate based on the distance debris from the plane travelled inside the Pentagon.

The flight recorder said it was actually only doing 350mph or something of that order, if I recall correctly.

I'm sure the Loosers will make hay out of this "discrepancy", but the simplest explanation is that whoever did the original estimate was just wrong. It's not as if there was a lot of data about how 757s perform as anti-Pentagon weapons for them to have based their estimate on at the time.

Getting back to what I said previously, it looks like the Dr Adequate thread is still civil and has not been moved by the mods, nor has the poster in question met the banhammer. I take back some of the mean things I said about that forum.

[Shrinker]

Does ANYONE here really need to remind you that no one contacted Donald Rumsfeld before scrambling jets on 9/11?
Ok...I'll make this easier for you...
So he was having a plate of eggs and bakey while America was under attack. If you were first told that NYC had been attacked with planes and you were the man responsible for giving orders to deploy fighter jets, what would you do? Would you either..
Priceless.

[Gravy]

WHAT ARE YOU BABBLING ON ABOUT?!?

Rumsfeld+bacon=controlled demolition?
Rumsfeld+bacon=government foreknowlege?
Rumsfeld+bacon=government control?
Rumsfeld+bacon=not commercial jets?

Your connect the dots logic is... staggering.

Tirdun, perhaps you're not aware that an anagram for "Rumsfeld bacon" is "Adolf curbs men."

[karim]

Talk about soft-spoken madmen...

Nice film Karim. Some of the interviews I have never seen before!


Thank you. Yes my film is much better than Loose Change:)

On a few occasions I've given some good quality OBL footage to CT:s and it is amazing to me how they can just ignore and state that it's "fake". They only "analyze" some blurry still frames. Yet even in the 30 minute appearance that was shown on al-jazeera like 3 moths after 911 and which the most CT:s agree is "real" he praises the attackers and encourages to Jihad. And still some CT:s say "Osama is innocent" and the "confession tape" is fake. If it is not real Osama in the tape then what are he's sons doing in it?


Peace

[Mojo]

If you were first told that NYC had been attacked with planes and you were the man responsible for giving orders to deploy fighter jets, what would you do? Would you either..

1. Continue with your breakfast.
OR
2. Jump out of your seat and rush to the command center.
This reminds me of the George W. Bush/My Pet Goat incident.

If you are planning something like 9/11 to boost your own image and power, when the news comes through that it has happened, do you:

a) make yourself look good by appearing to take dynamic action when told about it, or;

b) sit staring into space for seven minutes (or however long it was) thus giving the impression that you have no idea what to do?

[CurtC]

The flight recorder said it was actually only doing 350mph or something of that order, if I recall correctly.Do we have the flight data recorder for AA77? I was thinking that flight 93 in Pennsylvania is the only one to have recoverable recorders.

BTW, doesn't Loose Change state that (the official version says that) Hanjour made the big turn over DC at 530 mph? I would think that he would have accelerated on "final" going into the Pentagon (full throttle plus descent = speed), implying that the turn speed would be slower.

[chipmunk stew]

Thank you. Yes my film is much better than Loose Change:)

On a few occasions I've given some good quality OBL footage to CT:s and it is amazing to me how they can just ignore and state that it's "fake". They only "analyze" some blurry still frames. Yet even in the 30 minute appearance that was shown on al-jazeera like 3 moths after 911 and which the most CT:s agree is "real" he praises the attackers and encourages to Jihad. And still some CT:s say "Osama is innocent" and the "confession tape" is fake. If it is not real Osama in the tape then what are he's sons doing in it?


Peace(karim, I'm just getting a blank page when I go to the site you provided. Am I doing something wrong? Is this the correct url?: http://www.izdahara.tk/ Thanks.)

[karim]

(karim, I'm just getting a blank page when I go to the site you provided. Am I doing something wrong? Is this the correct url?: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks.)


It worked for me. If not for you then try: .karim.co.nr

I can PM you a direct link if there's some conspiracy blocking your connection.:)

[chipmunk stew]

It worked for me. If not for you then try: .karim.co.nr

I can PM you a direct link if there's some conspiracy blocking your connection.:)That one works, thanks. I'm watching it now.
http://www.karim.co.nr

[karim]

Though the Google video version has some audio issues. I recommend the much better quality rmvb...

.archive.org/details/The_Paladin_of_Jihad

[Kevin_Lowe]

Do we have the flight data recorder for AA77? I was thinking that flight 93 in Pennsylvania is the only one to have recoverable recorders.

I could be wrong, because I have no cite, but I have the idea in my head that the flight recorder for AA77 was indeed found and used as evidence in the Moussaoui trial.


BTW, doesn't Loose Change state that (the official version says that) Hanjour made the big turn over DC at 530 mph? I would think that he would have accelerated on "final" going into the Pentagon (full throttle plus descent = speed), implying that the turn speed would be slower.

They do, but I've seen absolutely no basis for their claim. I strongly suspect that they take the 530mph figure from the 9/11 commission report, and blithely assume that if Hanjour hit the Pentagon at 530mph he must have performed all of his previous manoeuvres at 530mph. That's the kind of "research" I expect from Dylan et. al.

[Belz...]

Cooperativeresearch.org (which is, unfortunately, down right now) had made over 400 points with sources as back up proving the white house knew what was coming and did absolutely nothing to beef up security.

How convenient for you that the site's down, then.

Also where was rumsfeld and w. bush, the supposedly commander in chief, on the morning of the attack?

What would his location say about the attacks, geggy ?

[Manny]

Oh jeez. Where to begin?No, really. What, substantively, is the difference between the regular joe firemen at the Pentagon and the regular joe firemen at the World Trade Center?

[Belz...]

Ok...I'll make this easier for you...

"We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld's actions," said Hamilton. "He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out."

http://motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

So he was having a plate of eggs and bakey while America was under attack. If you were first told that NYC had been attacked with planes and you were the man responsible for giving orders to deploy fighter jets, what would you do? Would you either..

1. Continue with your breakfast.
OR
2. Jump out of your seat and rush to the command center.

Didn't you just said he ran out ?

[Belz...]

Thank you. Yes my film is much better than Loose Change:)

On a few occasions I've given some good quality OBL footage to CT:s and it is amazing to me how they can just ignore and state that it's "fake". They only "analyze" some blurry still frames. Yet even in the 30 minute appearance that was shown on al-jazeera like 3 moths after 911 and which the most CT:s agree is "real" he praises the attackers and encourages to Jihad. And still some CT:s say "Osama is innocent" and the "confession tape" is fake. If it is not real Osama in the tape then what are he's sons doing in it?

Some people here have expressed concerns that the Loosers may actually be helping Bin Laden this way, wittingly or not.


Peace

They'll never agree to it.

[Gravy]

This reminds me of the George W. Bush/My Pet Goat incident.

If you are planning something like 9/11 to boost your own image and power, when the news comes through that it has happened, do you:

a) make yourself look good by appearing to take dynamic action when told about it, or;

b) sit staring into space for seven minutes (or however long it was) thus giving the impression that you have no idea what to do?

Many CTers argue that Bush wasn't even involved in 9/11. Maybe that's why he looked so stunned when reading "My Pet Goat." "Hey, how come I was out of the loop on this? I'm the Presifreakindent!"

It's a similar situation with Rumsfeld. If he had known about the attacks, I think he would have acted more like a guy "in charge." geggy is arguing that Rumsfeld was negligent in not being in command after hearing of the attacks. I actually agree to an extent, but I just wanted to see if geggy was willing to do his homework. Apparently not. Rumsfeld's actions on the morning of 9/11 are not flattering to him, but the details are a bit sketchy. When he heard of the second plane in NY, he was not at breakfast, but was in his office having a CIA briefing. He asked to be kept informed, but we don't know if he gave any "orders" at that point. (And the questions during his 9/11 Commission testimony don't cover that.) It wasn't until several minutes later, when flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that he went into "action," which consisted of seeing if he could help with rescue efforts...an understandable "human" reaction, but not exactly what I'd expect the number 2 commander in the U.S. to do. I want him heading for the bunker where the red phones are. It wasn't until after 10:00 that he became actively involved in important decision-making. Before that, he acted like a bureaucratic administrator, not a commander.

[Gravy]

I could be wrong, because I have no cite, but I have the idea in my head that the flight recorder for AA77 was indeed found and used as evidence in the Moussaoui trial.
Both recorders, cockpit voice and flight data, were recovered from flight 77. There was nothing usable from the cockpit data recorder. There was info recovered from the flight data recorder. I'll check that out tonight.

They do, but I've seen absolutely no basis for their claim. I strongly suspect that they take the 530mph figure from the 9/11 commission report, and blithely assume that if Hanjour hit the Pentagon at 530mph he must have performed all of his previous manoeuvres at 530mph. That's the kind of "research" I expect from Dylan et. al.
I tend to agree. They use the same speed for his maneuvers at 7,000 feet as for the impact 3 minutes later, which seems unlikely. Air traffic controllers remarked at the time that the maneuvers (or maneuver) were unsafe for a 757, but I'm not aware of anything that says the plane was going that fast.

[dubfan]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3865

Yeah, it's an explosive movement alright.

An explosive bowel movement.

[chipmunk stew]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3865

Yeah, it's an explosive movement alright.

An explosive bowel movement.Funny, I was just reading a thread called Death by Pooping (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56470). I predict such a fate for the Truth Movement.

[Gravy]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3865

Yeah, it's an explosive movement alright.

An explosive bowel movement.
Oh, I've read "Sun Zoo's" posts before. he's completely besotted with Avery and Rowe. It's creepy. Here's some of his advice for them:
Be certain to submit the first (next) release for competition in next year's Sundance Film Festival. It will win hands down I think. And that will also give it even more "umpf" for continued play in theaters, and in video stores + set the stage for the next Loose Change: In Search of Truth (sounds like Star Treck: In Search of Spock).

This way - almost every aspect of 9/11 CAN in fact get told, and it's important to have something important to tell the world, if you are to become a truly great movie producer.

And so what if you capitalize on the success of F911 with the title Loose Change 911 and rake in 50-100 million or more in the process. Money is power also, used wisely.
And this was moved "Under the Bridge," the place for trolls, not because of the responses to it, but because of the OP!
I do hope they keep the faith and remain committed to the same principals from which their success arose in the first place, that they stay humble and don't get cocky or arrogant. Sometimes I smell just a touch of it with Dylan. Perhaps I'll be banned for even saying this, but it's important. Stay humble guys and keep the faith. Always give back more than you get and you'll always get back more and more. You're in the limelight now. Therefore now more than ever is the time to remain humble and not get cocky, arrogant, or rude.
Now is when it matters most.
Cocky? Arrogant? Rude? Moi?

eta: under the bridge quote

[geggy]

It should have been known that Rumsfeld had an appointment to meet with congress leaders for breakfast/CIA briefing. So why did it take so long to inform him that America was under attack? Why did they wait until 40 minutes after the WTC attacks to inform him that pentagon had been struck? Something just don't fly.

I've been wondering what was going through Bush's mind that morning. He walked into the classroom 10 minutes after north tower was struck. He was going through photo op when the south tower was struck. Andy Card walked into the classroom to inform him that america was under attack then walked out right away without waiting for Bush's response. Bush just sat there with his poker face for another god knows how long. It wasn't the pet goat fiasco that I find most disturbing about his (in)actions. It was the fact that he comfortably slept in his own bed in the WHite House later that night knowing that some crazy jihadists had killed thousands of people without fearing that his own life may be in danger. WTF...?!!!

Manny...do you remember the daily shoving matches between firefighters and the police at ground zero because the firefighters were ordered to keep out of the rubble zone?

[Gravy]

It should have been known that Rumsfeld had an appointment to meet with congress leaders for breakfast/CIA briefing. So why did it take so long to inform him that America was under attack? Why did they wait until 40 minutes after the WTC attacks to inform him that pentagon had been struck? Something just don't fly.

Um, Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon when it was struck at 9:38.

[Manny]

Manny...do you remember the daily shoving matches between firefighters and the police at ground zero because the firefighters were ordered to keep out of the rubble zone?Yes I do. I remember when they happened, why, that they weren't daily and that it wasn't because they were ordered to keep out of the rubble zone. You obviously don't.

Do you deny that there were regular joe firefighters and cops on the rubble pile in the days and months following the terrorist attacks? Where did that picture of the firefighter in front of the cut column come from?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It should have been known that Rumsfeld had an appointment to meet with congress leaders for breakfast/CIA briefing. So why did it take so long to inform him that America was under attack? Why did they wait until 40 minutes after the WTC attacks to inform him that pentagon had been struck? Something just don't fly.

I've been wondering what was going through Bush's mind that morning. He walked into the classroom 10 minutes after north tower was struck. He was going through photo op when the south tower was struck. Andy Card walked into the classroom to inform him that america was under attack then walked out right away without waiting for Bush's response. Bush just sat there with his poker face for another god knows how long. It wasn't the pet goat fiasco that I find most disturbing about his (in)actions. It was the fact that he comfortably slept in his own bed in the WHite House later that night knowing that some crazy jihadists had killed thousands of people without fearing that his own life may be in danger. WTF...?!!!

Manny...do you remember the daily shoving matches between firefighters and the police at ground zero because the firefighters were ordered to keep out of the rubble zone?

I've been wondering what goes through your mind on a daily basis. You post disinformation, uncited information, unrelated information, wild conjecture, and refuse to approach the issue in a logical, rational manner.

[aggle-rithm]

Didn't you just said he ran out ?


He doesn't even read his own posts.

[Dr Adequate]

Some quotations which pretty much speak for themselves :


Overwhelming demand for a competitive two-year fixed-rate mortgage from Lambeth building society forced the lender to pull the deal just a day after its launch.
http://money.independent.co.uk/personal_finance/invest_save/article352109.ece


If everything goes along as planned, the deal will likely close within 45 to 60 days, during which there will be periods of intense negotiation and stretches where the seller will need to simply wait for one or more of the capital providers to complete their due diligence and internal review processes. If not, the seller will accept a backup offer or simply pull the deal until market conditions improve.
http://www.ironwoodcap.com/about_news_primer.htm


Tribek initially submitted plans for the project in February, but pulled the plan when planners said certain aspects would need to be changed for it to be approved.
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2004/06/14/story7.html


Now all of a sudden they want to sniff around and find some secret deal that Bush made with the ports people to pull the deal.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/theperfect/an_american_embarrassment_.guest.html


At least they had sense enough to pull the "Operation Iraqi Liberation" bit and go with "Operation Iraqi Freedom" before that first one got outta the bag.
http://aofg.blogs.com/the_airing_of_grievances/2005/07/say_gwot.html


Now the divorce is taking center stage. They threaten to pull the mission because of a divorce? Man, weird. Couldn't they think of a better plot point than that? You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the time when I told you about the hippies talking in Cardboard Control about pulling the mission. It's a lot like that. The hippies must be Catholic, because they're very adverse to anyone being divorced before landing on the Red Planet.
http://www.lightsoutfilms.com/film_escapefrommars.html


Instead of exerting diplomatic pressure and political pressure to get the thing sorted out, they made this threat to the Rwandans that if they did not install a broad-based transitional government, that the international community was going to wash its hands and possibly pull the mission.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/interviews/beardsley.html


BellSouth apparently pulled an offer to donate a building to house the city's police force, which has been operating from makeshift quarters since Hurricane Katrina. According to city officials, the head of the telco's regional operation rescinded the offer after municipal officials said they would offer free Wi-Fi to emergency workers, businesses and residents in the city. The phone company denies that it pulled the offer.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=12198


Institutional investors attacked the scheme as excessive and Misys pulled the plan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/executivepay/story/0,,1671849,00.html


"If there's no reduction in congestion, then you'd have to decide one of two things: is that because the charge isn't high enough or is there some fundamental flaw," he said. "If there's a fundamental flaw, then you'd most probably pull the scheme."
http://www.blacklondon.org.uk/news/2002/20020805a.htm


At the meeting, Mr Djanogly and County Councillor Silby expressed their extreme disappointment about the withdrawal of the scheme ... The Agency indicated that the decision to pull the scheme had been twofold.
http://www.jonathandjanogly.com/record.jsp?type=release&ID=70


Despite repeated efforts to dispel union fears, the governor eventually chose to pull the plan, putting the issue on hold.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18747


He finally met up with the local contact, Cao Bao (Julia Nickson). He tried to rescue one, but was abandoned at the pickup point when the CIA guy pulled the mission.
http://www.shopping.com/xPR-Rambo_First_Blood_Pt_2_Sylvester_Stallone~RD-68933684868


San Jose Water Company announced Dec. 20 that it will withdraw its plan to log redwoods and Douglas firs in 1,002 acres of its watershed in the hills above Los Gatos. Based on comments made by the California Department of Forestry about the Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan submitted by the water company, and reviewed by the California Department of Forestry, the company felt it was best to withdraw the application,
http://www.svcn.com/archives/lgwt/20051228/lgnews1.shtml


We were smart enough to pull the plan before building anything. We pulled the plug on construction plans in early Spring 2001.
http://news.com.com/2009-1082-827946.html


Netscape denied that feedback received in the past few days had anything to do with the project's being frozen ... Participants in those discussions were split on Netscape's decision to pull the project.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-224779.html


They advertised the asking price as $169, when the retail price at similar retailers was $500. Several thousand people, including many members of the Anandtech web forums immediately ordered the monitor through buy.com. At that time, Buy.com's business practice was to charge the credit cards before the item was shipped. When Buy.com discovered the price mistake, it immediately pulled the deal and made additional charges on the credit cards of the buyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy.com

Now, will some CT show me where "pull" means "destroy by controlled demolition" rather than "withdraw, cancel, abandon, give up on, abort"?

[aggle-rithm]

Some people here have expressed concerns that the Loosers may actually be helping Bin Laden this way, wittingly or not.


Do they do anything wittingly?

[geggy]

Arkan...funny I was thinking the same about you.

Belz...what do you mean? He ran out after being told about the pentagon attack, not the WTC attacks.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan...funny I was thinking the same about you.

Belz...what do you mean? He ran out after being told about the pentagon attack, not the WTC attacks.

Oh? Please, do elaborate. Provide some edification for my, apparently, confused mind.

[aggle-rithm]

It should have been known that Rumsfeld had an appointment to meet with congress leaders for breakfast/CIA briefing. So why did it take so long to inform him that America was under attack? Why did they wait until 40 minutes after the WTC attacks to inform him that pentagon had been struck? Something just don't fly.


Maybe it was the Congressional leaders that were left out of the loop, and Rumsfeld was just collateral damage. ;)


I've been wondering what was going through Bush's mind that morning. He walked into the classroom 10 minutes after north tower was struck. He was going through photo op when the south tower was struck. Andy Card walked into the classroom to inform him that america was under attack then walked out right away without waiting for Bush's response. Bush just sat there with his poker face for another god knows how long.

He was probably waiting for someone to bring him a fresh pair of undies.

It wasn't the pet goat fiasco that I find most disturbing about his (in)actions. It was the fact that he comfortably slept in his own bed in the WHite House later that night

??? You actually have sources that tell you how comfortably Pres. Bush slept on a certain night? This I gotta see!


knowing that some crazy jihadists had killed thousands of people without fearing that his own life may be in danger. WTF...?!!!

What exactly did he have to be afraid of? The hijackers were all dead. The military was on high alert. ALL airline traffic had been grounded. At this point in American history, anyone who LOOKED at the White House the wrong way would probably be immediately arrested. There probably wasn't a safer person in the world that night than the President.


Manny...do you remember the daily shoving matches between firefighters and the police at ground zero because the firefighters were ordered to keep out of the rubble zone?

Ahh, memories....

[rwguinn]

Do they do anything wittingly?

50%if them think so....:D