Loose Change

[chipmunk stew]

Dylan is still under the impression the Michael Meacher is going to show Loose Change on June 14. He refers to an email dated 5/5/06 from "T.S., Managing Director, MMI Ltd":
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/05/parliament-funk.html

Perhaps we should refer MPs to Gravy's critique anyway, just in case?

[chipmunk stew]

Double post.

[chipmunk stew]

One to watch:
"PENTAGON VIDEOS TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW!":
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4266

[Curnir]

Oh.

You're still using that base 10 numbering system, aren't you?

How quaint.

I've been using base 13 for years, so page 100 is meaningless to me... ;)

What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

[Kage]

I was discussing 911 CTers with my dad and he said that this wasn't like the fact that Bush got all of Osama's family etc etc out of the country right after 9/11. I know this comes from fahrenheit 911 but is this also CT bunk?

Thanks again for all the useful information about this. Given the rabid anti-bush slant of some of my relatives I can expect to come across some of this [rule 8] at an upcoming family event, and it is nice to have the information necessary to shoot down this kind of [rule 8 again].

[dubfan]

One to watch:
"PENTAGON VIDEOS TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW!":
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4266

Obvious prediction: it won't show very much, and the CTs won't believe it anyway.

Not so obvious prediction: the CTs will clamor for the other 84 confiscated videos to also be released, and it will become part of accepted CT lore (and a tirelessly repeated talking point) that something incriminating is contained on one of the other videos that was not released.

[chipmunk stew]

I was discussing 911 CTers with my dad and he said that this wasn't like the fact that Bush got all of Osama's family etc etc out of the country right after 9/11. I know this comes from fahrenheit 911 but is this also CT bunk?

Thanks again for all the useful information about this. Given the rabid anti-bush slant of some of my relatives I can expect to come across some of this [rule 8] at an upcoming family event, and it is nice to have the information necessary to shoot down this kind of [rule 8 again].According the the 9/11 Commission, it's bunk:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Of course, people who buy into this stuff view the 9/11 Commission with extreme suspicion, but I'm sure you could follow up on original sources to confirm this if you're resourceful enough. The Report cites all their sources.

Edit: There are several media sources listed at the bottom of the Snopes article.

[chipmunk stew]

Dylan is still under the impression the Michael Meacher is going to show Loose Change on June 14. He refers to an email dated 5/5/06 from "T.S., Managing Director, MMI Ltd":
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/05/parliament-funk.html

Perhaps we should refer MPs to Gravy's critique anyway, just in case?Dylan is aware that Meacher cancelled. Now he's trying to create a pressure campaign to get him to go ahead with the screening:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4264

[chipmunk stew]

I sent Dylan Avery an email today:Gravy, maybe you can sweeten the deal by appearing on Roxdog's 50-listener show first.

Funny why would he ask for this when he was unwilling to go on RD's show?

Did he change his mind about the show?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4032&view=findpost&p=4476828

I know jenabell is misrepresting your position, but I think if you give the Loosers a taste of what you're bringing to the table, they're going to want blood and demand that Dylan debate you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Gravy, maybe you can sweeten the deal by appearing on Roxdog's 50-listener show first.


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4032&view=findpost&p=4476828

I know jenabell is misrepresting your position, but I think if you give the Loosers a taste of what you're bringing to the table, they're going to want blood and demand that Dylan debate you.

If Gravy does appear on Roxdog's show we should ensure that we are all on IM at the time to aid in quick fact checking so he doesn't get overwhelmed in a pile of drek, a la Hovind v Shermer.

[geggy]

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc3.jpg
first squib going off the allow the top to fall without toppling over and break into pieces.
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc4.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc5.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc6.jpg
second squib ejecting to allow the portion above to fall without toppling over and break into pieces
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc7.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc8.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc9.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc10.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/firehouse.jpg (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv)
click on pic to play video of witnesses account of hearing bombs

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examinationâ€�, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.â€�... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.â€�...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.â€�...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.â€�... â€

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

[geggy]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

[bob_kark]

Why do you even bother posting a link that contains a proven myth in the first sentence?

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis

I just don't get it.

[chipmunk stew]

[cut & paste of a bunch of CT crap that's been addressed ad nauseum]What do you hope to accomplish by returning to square one?

[chipmunk stew]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed.Wow, it's accelerating? That would be something.

how do you explain this?Acme brand rockets.

[kookbreaker]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

Here's a better idea: If this is caused by explosives as you are hinting, calculate how many tons it would require.

[kookbreaker]

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]


Yeah, the 78 floor wasn't an inferno. Shame about all the floors above them.

More lies from geggy.

[Curnir]

Look on right side of the tower.
Okidoki
Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed.Um... No.how do you explain this?
Hmmm you don't know (rule 8) about physics.

[bob_kark]

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]

Link?


In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]

Link?


William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

Link?

August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”

Link?

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]

They waited two months to report this? Oh, and Link?

[bob_kark]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

So, you're saying that the concrete that is "flying straight outward" is accelerating? Are there rockets on the concrete? Do you mean that they're falling toward the earth and experiencing acceleration due to gravity? Oh, big question here, how can you determine acceleration from a still photo?

[kookbreaker]

[September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]


And yet, for all this talk, not one pool of molten steel has been taped, photographed. Molten metal could also mean molten aluminum, which while not glowing, is a molten metal that could be reached in am office fire.


August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements.


Which means that we can rule out defective materials as a cause. Nothing more.


It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”


I bolded the relevant part for you geggy. You are missing the fact that NIST had only limited samples because they did not qant to work with unidentified steel. Get it?


Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examinationâ€�, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.â€�... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.â€�...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.â€�...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.â€�... â€


A horde of non-explosive reasons have been given for this. Without any further info

And finally:

Please list the number of Structural Engineers that agree with your asessment, or any other CT asessment as to how the buildings fell.

Geggy is a lying, squirming litte snot trying to repeat stuff we've debunked dozens of times. Stop wasting our time.

[geggy]

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

It's all right here, dorks...

[kookbreaker]

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

It's all right here, dorks...


And its all crap, fishbulb.

Anyone do a drink calculation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56850) for geggy's latest spew?

[CurtC]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?So you think the debris off to the sides has come there horizontally, instead of being in the process of falling from a higher level and on its way mostly down? Can you find the video that shows this? After all, there are many videos of the collapse - just find one that shows this debris going sideways.

Also, since you seem to be implying that this was the result of a controlled demolition, please find any video of a controlled demolition anywhere that has large amounts of building material being ejected sideways.

Geggy, do you really believe this cr*p you post, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of us? I just can't believe that anyone would be so clueless as to believe what you just posted.

[chipmunk stew]

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

It's all right here, dorks...Keep on linking and ducking, geggy. You're doing great.

[kookbreaker]

Geggy, why are you such a sniveling, lying, slimey weasel?

[CurtC]

If Gravy does appear on Roxdog's show we should ensure that we are all on IM at the time to aid in quick fact checking so he doesn't get overwhelmed in a pile of drek, a la Hovind v Shermer.The comparison to Hovind is apt. Hovind's main characteristic is the sheer number of lies that he can casually spew out. By the time a debater shows his first lie to be false, Hovind is already on lie number 87. And if he gets cornered in one subject area, he can quickly switch to a different front.

I think the only way to debate these guys would be to announce your intent up front, to look at each claim in enough detail to rebut it, and refuse to let them switch subjects on you until you're finished with the one you were on.

[geggy]

And yet, for all this talk, not one pool of molten steel has been taped, photographed. Molten metal could also mean molten aluminum, which while not glowing, is a molten metal that could be reached in am office fire.

Right and all the witnesses are lying.

I bolded the relevant part for you geggy. You are missing the fact that NIST had only limited samples because they did not qant to work with unidentified steel. Get it?

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?

[CurtC]

What do you get if you multiply six by nine?Wow - before I read this, it had never occurred to me that (42base13) = (54base10).

I wonder if this thread will make it to (269base10) pages.

[chipmunk stew]

Right and all the witnesses are lying.

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?Simultaneously defending the conflicting ideas that there was molten steel and that the steel never got hotter than 600C.

Not connecting both or either of these ideas with how they support the controlled demolition theory.

Keep going, geggy. You're a laugh a minute.

[kookbreaker]

Right and all the witnesses are lying.


The witnesess can be mistaken, and in some cases were using artistic liscence, or never saw any such steel themselves.

http://911myths.com/html/dr_alison_geyh.html


Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?

Yes, why don't you read the entire NIST report instead of getting trimmed bits from your kookspiracy websites. Or would that be too much like real work? Are you guys allergic to real research or something?

[NobbyNobbs]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

Acceleration: a change in velocity over a period of time. Either an increase or decrease in speed or a change in direction

Newton's 1st Law:(simplified) An object will not change its velocity without a force on it. No force, no acceleration.

The debris you refer to is in mid-air. The only force on it in that photo is gravity. Gravity pulls downward. So, in a way, you are right. The concrete is flying outward (it has momentum) and it is accelerating. However, it is accelerating downward.

That is all you can tell from the photo, and you can only tell that much because we are sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that gravity exists. We are not sure that controlled explosives exist, so we can't tell if it is accelerating outward.

Since acceleration is a change in velocity over a period of time, and since a photo is only one moment in time, it is impossible to tell if an object is accelerating from one photograph.



(This educational moment has been brought to you by a full-standing member of the National Science Teachers Association. Join us again next time when we discuss why Einstein's theories show how unlikely it is that aliens are visiting us.)

[pgwenthold]

The comparison to Hovind is apt. Hovind's main characteristic is the sheer number of lies that he can casually spew out. By the time a debater shows his first lie to be false, Hovind is already on lie number 87. And if he gets cornered in one subject area, he can quickly switch to a different front.

I think the only way to debate these guys would be to announce your intent up front, to look at each claim in enough detail to rebut it, and refuse to let them switch subjects on you until you're finished with the one you were on.

That's why I have said that the debate should be a very narrow topic. Something like, Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Now, debate that.

CTers would NEVER agree to that, however, because they know they would be completely massacred. First thing they'd have to explain is what happen to each of the 40odd people who were on the flight. They can't do that, because they could find no evidence at all that anyone of them are alive. Leaves a fairly large hole in the argument.

Typically, they just brush the group off with some conspiracy claim. However, if the topic is focused, they would have to address each one individually, and actually provide evidence for their claims.

[NoZed Avenger]

"charliebean" posted your challenge on the LC forum, and "DemolitionCrew" responded:

Besides being someone NEW, WHO ARE YOU DUDE?

I ask that to say...what would Dylan or any member from the LC Crew have to gain by debating you?????



Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Gravy]

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

It's all right here, dorks...
Check your PM, geggy. I'd like a reply.

[chipmunk stew]

Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.

[Stellafane]

No...the "power of christ" reference was from family guy. It's just funnier when peter griffin said it. It was in the episode which chris started speaking ebonic hip hop language and peter thought he had been possessed, so he pulled over his car to start cranking up biblical references and spray holy water on chris to get rid of the blackness in him. Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.

OK geggy, can you explain to me why you're quoting from Family Guy, when its creator, Seth Macfarlane, obviously had advance warning of 9/11 and is thus part of the conspiracy? Because as I explained in an earlier post, Macfarlane was supposed to be on one of the planes that hit the WTC, but at the last minute he "accidently" missed the flight. So doesn't that make it obvious that Macfarlane is in on the conspiracy?

This isn't just some goof -- I really do want you to explain to me why Macfarlane missed that plane. And do you know why? Because I want you to admit it doesn't mean anything, it's just a coincidence. Then I can slam you by pointing out the fact that you're willing to overlook this coincidence, but you attach all sorts of meaning to other coincidences that are vastly less striking and suspicious. Not only that, you've built a vast conspiracy out of these bits of meaningless fluff.

So which is it: Are you finally ready to admit your 9/11 conspiracy is a big load of stupid crap, or is Peter Griffin yet another agent of GW Bush? One or the other, geggy -- your choice.

[Gravy]

Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.
That's Roxdog, you're referring to, not Dylan Avery. All Roxdog has to do is come here, make his points, and stick around for the debate, but he won't do that. This forum gets many times the audience that his podcast does. He is a sad, cowardly person.

ETA: As for me being on his show, sure! I'd act really dumb, and that would give Avery the confidence to debate me.

[bob_kark]

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
No link to confirm. Also, what exactly is this to confirm? What explosives leave metal in a liquid state for 8 weeks? I have an answer for you in my next quip.

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]

This is the key point, Underground.

Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml)

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

The link for this is to a book, I'm not going to purchase just to debunk an incomplete sentence that could have been taken completely out of context.



August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”

What they fail to follow up with is this:

Examination of photographs showed that 16 of the exterior panels from WTC 1 were exposed to fire prior to the building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were directly exposed to fire. NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C: east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, and truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the columns from the fire floors

So, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimiter columns and 1 percent of the columns from the fire floors. Not really damning evidence.

Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.

These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones with WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.

Oh, wait, so the areas where the samples were located weren't even supposed to have elevated steel temperatures!

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]

Full quote:
At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examinationâ€�, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.â€�... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.â€�...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.â€�...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.â€�... â€

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

Again, this article starts off on the wrong foot by making a false claim in the first sentence.

[dubfan]

That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.

Tonight at 9:30 was supposed to be my big debut on Roxdog's show. I asked him last week for details (what we were going to discuss specifically, who else would be on, and what number to call), and he has yet to reply.

They're all atwitter over there now about the Pentagon videos that will be released at 1PM. Dylan went way out on a limb and predicted the videos would show a "silver blob".

[Gravy]

On the LC forum:

There is a picture of a larger cruise missile on a stand, painted in AA livery (undoubtedly photoshopped.) THAT would be a better picture to support the cruise missile hypothesis. Can anyone find that photo illustration?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904469fb3b4d1e6.jpg
Shhh! PLEASE don't anyone tell them that it's an art project, not a cruise missile!

[Gravy]

Tonight at 9:30 was supposed to be my big debut on Roxdog's show. I asked him last week for details (what we were going to discuss specifically, who else would be on, and what number to call), and he has yet to reply.

They're all atwitter over there now about the Pentagon videos that will be released at 1PM. Dylan went way out on a limb and predicted the videos would show a "silver blob".
I applaud you for being willing to put up with Roxdog's tactics. From how he behaved here, and how he behaved towards me on the LC forum, he doesn't seem to be a decent person.

[senorpogo]

I've been checking my mail for days now. When am I going to get paid for shilling for the government's official 9/11 story? Tell those in Globalist accounting to cut me my check already. Neo-con apologists got to get paid.

[bob_kark]

I've been checking my mail for days now. When am I going to get paid for shilling for the government's official 9/11 story? Tell those in Globalist accounting to cut me my check already. Neo-con apologists got to get paid.

Sorry, but we have to pay you in herring. Don't ask, its complicated.

[Pardalis]

first squib going off the allow the top to fall without toppling over and break into pieces.

second squib ejecting to allow the portion above to fall without toppling over and break into pieces

Are you making this up or do you have actual evidence that that's how controlled demolitions work?

click on pic to play video of witnesses account of hearing bombs

Irrelevant.

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]

Emphasis mine. Doesn't explain anything.

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

He's a JOURNALIST, not an expert in engeneering. Irrelevant.

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]

What is that? Not evidence of a controlled demolition!

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination�, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though.

Is this geggy talking or are you quoting FEMA? Or are you quoting someone else talking about FEMA's report? If FEMA isn't drawing to this conclusion, so how can you say they have evidence that there were explosives used. Who says there is such evidence in the first place. Please provide exact quote and info on who is saying what!

Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences

Selected by whom? Who is this paragraph from? Are you an expert in metallurgy geggy?

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

Too stupid to comment.


So basically you have no evidence of a fake-collapse-from-the-top-style-controlled-demolition. Thanks.

[farrisjs]

I have been working for the evil Fed gov for 23 years now, I get paid every two weeks deposited directly to my checking account. You must have submit the wrong forms at your training at the Haliburton Conspiracy Camp.

[Pardalis]

On the LC forum:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904469fb3b4d1e6.jpg
Shhh! PLEASE don't anyone tell them that it's an art project, not a cruise missile!

This thing looks like it's made of fibre-glass!

[Pardalis]

One to watch:
"PENTAGON VIDEOS TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW!":
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4266

Really, is this true?

[kookbreaker]

Really, is this true?

Consider the source:


...for what it's worth - you're the only person outside of my lawyer
and myself who knows this: the video is getting released to us TOMORROW.
that's right. i might have to fly to DC to get the CD and figure out
the file format.

They're stringing themselves along by the nose.

[NoZed Avenger]

That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.

Ah. I had thought them one and the same person.

Thanks for the clarification.

[chipmunk stew]

Really, is this true?It's true, but they got scooped by Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

[aggle-rithm]

The picky historian is back,

To be accurate the technology did exist well before Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had only added wooden fins to their torpedoes for the attack. Pearl Harbor was based on the similar British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940, which proved the viability of shallow water torpedo attacks. To me, the important fact to remember is the nature of the navy leaders of virtually every nation at the time, they still believed in the big gun platform, the battleship, as the primary capital ship. There were few proponents of carrier warfare by 1941 (including Nagumo, leader of the Japanese strike force). Even fewer believed it would be possible to strike a base such as Pearl Harbor with any effectiveness. Now we could believe this was a conspiracy or we could simply believe that the admirals were not very forward thinkers, as history has so often proven (i.e the Allied use of tanks in 1940 was straight out of WWI, conspiracy or stupidity?).

The US made many, many blunders in WWII, especially in the early months. The only reason they weren't wiped off the map is that they had much greater resources than their enemies, AND they learned from their mistakes.

One of the stupidest policies during the war was plugging in replacement soldiers to keep the "head count" constant during combat. This replacement soldiers were never able to fit in and were often killed almost immediately. German troops, on the other hand, just let the unit keep fighting with reduced numbers until they couldn't operate effectively any more, then the entire unit was pulled to be reorganized and to train with fresh troops.

Where did the Germans learn this? From a study commissioned, then rejected, by the US military.

[aggle-rithm]

What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

A larger number.

[kookbreaker]

The US made many, many blunders in WWII, especially in the early months. The only reason they weren't wiped off the map is that they had much greater resources than their enemies, AND they learned from their mistakes.

One of the stupidest policies during the war was plugging in replacement soldiers to keep the "head count" constant during combat. This replacement soldiers were never able to fit in and were often killed almost immediately. German troops, on the other hand, just let the unit keep fighting with reduced numbers until they couldn't operate effectively any more, then the entire unit was pulled to be reorganized and to train with fresh troops.

Where did the Germans learn this? From a study commissioned, then rejected, by the US military.

The really sad part is we kept the same policy through Vietnam.

[aggle-rithm]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

How can you tell it's accellerating from a still photo?

You got skills, man!

[Gravy]

Really, is this true?
I wonder if this Looser is nervous
If the FBI releases any video that shows a 757 hitting the pentago, I am moving out of this country.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1951&view=findpost&p=3121731

...or if he'll say, "I said 'pentago,' not 'Pentagon.'"

[Pardalis]

I wonder if this Looser is nervous

...or if he'll say, "I said 'pentago,' not 'Pentagon.'"

Why would he leave his counrty if a 757 did hit the Pentagon 5 years ago? Where's the logic in that?

[kookbreaker]

I wonder if this Looser is nervous

...or if he'll say, "I said 'pentago,' not 'Pentagon.'"

Actually, he'll just say it was the Pentagon that released it, not the FBI.

[karim]

Why would he leave his counrty if a 757 did hit the Pentagon 5 years ago? Where's the logic in that?


You see... if one hit the Pentagon it means those 757s can hit you anywhere.

[Pardalis]

You see... if one hit the Pentagon it means those 757s can hit you anywhere.

LOL. Well he'd better not leave the country by plane then!

[aggle-rithm]

first squib going off the allow the top to fall without toppling over and break into pieces.

second squib ejecting to allow the portion above to fall without toppling over and break into pieces


Let me just say something equally intelligent and insightful:

Mmmmm... squib. ;)


click on pic to play video of witnesses account of hearing bombs


I'm sure these witnesses have plenty of experience with falling buildings and exploding bombs. That's how they have acquired the unique talent to identify the sounds of bombs within the cacophony of the WTC collapse.


September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]


Can you say "non sequitur"?


August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”


Has this somehow acquired relevance since the last time you posted it?



July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]


So how come YOU get to discuss it? Teacher's pet?


Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examinationâ€�, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.â€�... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.â€�...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.â€�...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.â€�... â€

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

If you can't trust a paranoid conspiracy theory site, who can you trust?

Some free advice, geggers. Before you post, read what you've written aloud. If it makes absolutely no sense, then consider a re-write.

ETA: Oops, I forgot geggster is deaf. How insensitive of me!

Go ahead and read it silently, gegg. Should be just as effective.

[Yahzi]

I've had a suspicion lately that my wife is a moan-hoaxer.
Argh! It took me three follow-up posts to see that stupid little "a'...

:D :D :D

[Blackwell]

Argh! It took me three follow-up posts to see that stupid little "a'...

:D :D :D

Haha - well, it was easy to miss! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make a cheap joke.


GEGGY - will you please, for the group, tell us what your definition of a "squib" is, and why you think you see one in those stills you posted?

[milesalpha]

Sorry, but we have to pay you in herring. Don't ask, its complicated.

AHA! Your slip of the toungue has revealed the real nature of the conspiracy. Bush intends to restore the Hanseatic League and put them back on top! I knew it had something to do with the Dutch.

[hurdygurdy]

Pentagon Strike New Video (5/16/06) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdHdX6Znvc4)

[RayG]

Looks like this massive conspiracy may have cost me a friendship, though I've told him I'd just as easily have a beer with him as argue with him.

On May 11th I received an email from him entitled Confronting The Evidence--The 9--11 Truth Movement in which, at great length, he described the far-reaching government conspiracy of 911, mentioned Loose Change, made reference to the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbour, The Project for a New American Century, and the New World Order, and encouraged me to check out links supporting the 911 conspiracy.

He was not amused when I responded with a list of links supporting the 'official' story, or debunking the contents of the links he had provided to me.

In an apparent appeal to authority, he tossed the names Steven Jones and Barry Zwicker at me, as though they have a monopoly on the truth. He became increasingly upset that I was unimpressed by their qualifications.

We corresponded back and forth via email, him getting increasingly emotional, me standing firm in my demand for evidence. Him resorting to name-calling and more emotional outbursts, me asking repeatedly for irrefutable evidence.

I told him I hadn't resorted to name-calling, or outright dismissal, I was "waiting for some FACTS to surface that show an elaborate conspiracy involving literally thousands of government employees, in dozens of government and civilian agencies, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Never mind the links to opinions, conjecture, speculation, or wishful-thinking, give me some MEAT. Give me even one name of a conspirator, or one document showing this elaborate scheme. Rumors, and claims by unqualified individuals just aren't convincing."

He became increasingly irrate.

A few minutes ago I received his latest email, filled with more emotional gems, heightened name-calling, and a plea I not send him any more on the matter lest he vomit (apparently because I've insulted his intelligence).

Too bad really, I've had some pretty interesting discussions with him in the past about topics suited for this message forum. He's not a bad guy, and it's really sad he's resorting to temper tantrums as impressive as anything my 11 kids have produced.

Reminds me of the Elbert Hubbard quote -- "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." --

Anyone else lose a friend over this?

RayG

[Tailgater]

Arg, I had a nice big post typed out and wasn't logged in...

[SezMe]

You have 11 kids and you have time to post here?? Please, would some CTer look into this.

[steve s]

I always will maintain its a belief system like a religion and that to admit themselves as wrong and learn from their mistakes is somehow overweighed by the need to belong to a group.

I agree. They remind me of the creationists. No amount of evidence will ever convince a creationist of the validity of evolution. That's because their beliefs aren't based on any evidence. Their acceptance of creationism is based solely on the dictates of their religion.

The CTers are the same. You could take a Looser to a university materials science lab and show him how steel is weakened by high temperatures, and he'll still refuse to believe that the towers were brought down by fire alone. Even if he admits that heat weakens steel, he'll cling to his belief that there were explosives in the building.

Steve S.

[Tailgater]

Short on time now, so making it a short one. New to forum. I have been following this thread since around #20 and have been trying to keep up ever since. Between this thread and all the connecting links, it is quite a chore. I am an electrician and have seen my share of transformers blowing, power lines being ripped apart, and lights surging and popping. I can't seem to find it, but early on in this thread or connecting links i saw a video of people running out of the building with flashing lights and popping sounds going off. This was one of the vids they were saying was proof of explosions near the bottom. Using MY common sense to SEE what was going on, those are the things I thought of first. Havn't seen that touched on or I missed it. Just my 2cents. Yes Ray....I have. Not a great friend, but someone I could talk too without freaking out. Just wanted to say great job on the research Gravy. You the man. Another comparison of geggy and Peter is that they are both exposed for antics they know are wrong every time. Just when you think they have learned something, they come back the next episode for even more wackiness...ensuring us all quality entertainment.

[Pardalis]

I agree. They remind me of the creationists.

Funny, I had the same thought. CT's and Creationsists can't seem to accept that random events (AKA coincidences) do happen, that there isn't necessarilly a motive or an intelligent design behind every random occurence. That's what makes their claims sound so paranoid. They make connections were there are simply none to make. Sure some things seem odd and suspicious, but stuff happens! Coincidences are a part of our daily lives, we don't even see most of them unless an event makes us look for them. Coincidences are how the Universe got to be.

[chipmunk stew]

Another comparison of geggy and Peter is that they are both exposed for antics they know are wrong every time. Just when you think they have learned something, they come back the next episode for even more wackiness...ensuring us all quality entertainment.:D How true!

Welcome to the forums, Tailgater.

[WildCat]

One to watch:
"PENTAGON VIDEOS TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW!":
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4266
Just saw it on the local news (NBC 5 Chicago), not much to see on the video. It's moving way too fast, but you can tell it's bigger than a missile and has AA paint. I can't believe it took over 4 years of Hollywood manipulation for thet! ;)

The gov't insists there are no other videos. Now, the CT'ers insist a tape was taken from a gas station nearby, you'd think they could have followed up on that story by finding witnesses, but they keep posting the same old story that hasn't changed in all this time.

The news story did mention the the CT, and the "controversy" that it may have been a missile. They then showed Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, saying the evidence for the plane hitting the Pentagon was overwhelming and conclusive, I don't know if that was file footage or a new statement.

[Gravy]

A bit of perspective about the Pentagon attack:
“Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C.

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

Eric Bart's Pentagon Crash Witness List: http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

Another Pentagon Crash Witness list: http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

Note that many of the witnesses specifically say it was a very large American Airlines plane. Some of the witnesses are experienced at aircraft identification.

Here's a partial list of the organizations that would have to be fooled in order for the Pentagon conspiracy theories to begin to make sense. Keep in mind that 8,000 people were on the scene after the crash. To my knowledge none of them have supported any conspiracy theory. Have the CTs made any attempt to interview any of these 8,000 people? If I thought my government was launching terrorist attacks against its own citizens, I'D REALLY WANT TO FIND OUT FOR SURE, AND NOT JUST SPEND MY TIME TWIDDLING A COMPUTER MOUSE.

the Pentagon Fire Unit
the Pentagon security staff,
the DOD Honor Guard
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 2-person Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
Donald Rumsfeld and staff
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
the Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
the District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Virginia State Police,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the National Transportation Safety Board
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the FBI Hazmat Team,
the EPA Hazmat Team,
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the US Department of Defense,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
the American Red Cross,
the United States Secret Service,
American Airllines
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the National Disaster Medical System,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
the Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders
the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center aircraft
the C-130H crew in D.C.
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington

[Gravy]

...I am an electrician and have seen my share of transformers blowing, power lines being ripped apart, and lights surging and popping. I can't seem to find it, but early on in this thread or connecting links i saw a video of people running out of the building with flashing lights and popping sounds going off. This was one of the vids they were saying was proof of explosions near the bottom. Using MY common sense to SEE what was going on, those are the things I thought of first. Havn't seen that touched on or I missed it.
Welcome Tailgater. Good to get your perspective. I touch on the issue of electrical explosions on page 61 of my "Loose Change" guide.
And how many of these explosions were electrical systems shorting, transformers and switchgear blowing, generators failing, steam pipes bursting, flaming debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts, etc. Several reports call the sound of the actual collapse of tower 2 a “huge explosion.”

Electrical explosions do happen in skyscrapers:

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said. The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes. NEW YORK TIMES July 24, 1992

Remarks on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing by Fire Chief Donald J. Burns
“Usually, a report of an explosion in a high-rise indicates an electrical problem such as a large short or a transformer explosion. “

Video of a transformer explosion. (http://www.alfatransformer.com/video/transformer_explosion.mpg)

What the various explosions reported would have to do with CD, I don’t know. When you demolish a building with explosives, you set the charges to go off in a precise order at demolition time, not in a random fashion for nearly an hour. Some CTists have suggested that bombs were placed at different locations within the building. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why that would be. Large bombs would really mess up your carefully-prepared controlled demolition. What’s more, no one I know of has come up with any plausible explanation of how this massive amount of CD work could have been accomplished.

[RayG]

You have 11 kids and you have time to post here?? Please, would some CTer look into this.

Not to worry, only 8 of them still live at home. :D

RayG

[RayG]

A bit of perspective about the Pentagon attack:
Here's a partial list of the organizations that would have to be fooled in order for the Pentagon conspiracy theories to begin to make sense...

Hey Gravy, that list meshes well with the one I posted back in March:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1537874&highlight=FEMA#post1537874

So the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the state of New York,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the Federal Advisory Committee,
the NYPD,
the FBI,
the Secret Service,
the CIA,
the New York Port Authority,
the NYFD,
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
United Airlines,
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Pentegon,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
Otis Air National Guard Base,
Langley Air Force Base,
Andrews Air Force Base,
Offutt Air Force Base,
the Air National Guard,
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the New York flight control center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the La Guardia Airport control tower,
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
and Emma E. Booker Elementary School were all cooperating in a widespread conspiracy to conduct a controlled demolition, thereby reducing the WTC to a pile of rubble, provide misinformation to the American public, and divert attention from the REAL culprits -- the government?

Say it ain't so!!

RayG

[Tailgater]

Gravy-I touch on the issue of electrical explosions on page 61 of my "Loose Change" guide.

Thanks for the confirmation Gravy. I can't see your guide though. For some reason I get cannot find server whenever I try it. Tried for weeks now. Wow on the transformer video. I didn't see one that big, but it was a smalller telephone pole transformer. From 50 yards, it was so loud made my ears ring for 2 days, along with a flash, a small mushroom cloud, and a FIRE. That was just a small one that you find in a rural neighborhood.

[Tailgater]

Just another quick one. A house in a town near here had a gas explosion from the kitchen. Blew most of the house up and windows out of the surrounding houses along with a few people that were knocked over in the street. Was that a "squib"?

[Gravy]

Gravy-I touch on the issue of electrical explosions on page 61 of my "Loose Change" guide.

Thanks for the confirmation Gravy. I can't see your guide though. For some reason I get cannot find server whenever I try it. Tried for weeks now. Wow on the transformer video. I didn't see one that big, but it was a smalller telephone pole transformer. From 50 yards, it was so loud made my ears ring for 2 days, along with a flash, a small mushroom cloud, and a FIRE. That was just a small one that you find in a rural neighborhood.
Tailgater,
I just tried both links to my "LC" critique and they're working...they're in my sig at the bottom of this post.

BTW, just wanted to make a big public thanks to CurtC for all his work on the HTML version. I just checked out the working table of contents. Awesome! I know that was a huge amount of work. You made something far more useful out of my scribblings.

[Gravy]

Just another quick one. A house in a town near here had a gas explosion from the kitchen. Blew most of the house up and windows out of the surrounding houses along with a few people that were knocked over in the street. Was that a "squib"?
I believe that's called a "squibboom."

[Gravy]

I'd like to get people's opinion on this. I turned down a request to be a guest on the Philadelphia morning radio show of Michael Smerconish. (http://www.mastalk.com/mastalk/front.jspx) He's a pretty big player: big market, drive-time, sells books, wins awards, subs for Bill O'Reilly on his radio show.

But I don't like his politics. He's right-wing, thinks this country is full of "pussies" for not executing Moussaoui, that kind of thing.

I have no qualms about my decision as it relates to one show. But if I get more requests like that, i'm wondering what to do. I don't want to appear to be lending my voice to causes I dislike. Then again, the opportunity to reach a lot of people with FACTS doesn't come along every day.

I'm sure Dylan Avery sweats over this kind of thing every day.

That's a joke.

Your thoughts?

[Polaris]

The picky historian is back,

To be accurate the technology did exist well before Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had only added wooden fins to their torpedoes for the attack. Pearl Harbor was based on the similar British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940, which proved the viability of shallow water torpedo attacks. To me, the important fact to remember is the nature of the navy leaders of virtually every nation at the time, they still believed in the big gun platform, the battleship, as the primary capital ship. There were few proponents of carrier warfare by 1941 (including Nagumo, leader of the Japanese strike force). Even fewer believed it would be possible to strike a base such as Pearl Harbor with any effectiveness. Now we could believe this was a conspiracy or we could simply believe that the admirals were not very forward thinkers, as history has so often proven (i.e the Allied use of tanks in 1940 was straight out of WWI, conspiracy or stupidity?).

Forgot about Taranto. Didn't know the depth of thar harbor, or whether it was torpedos anyway. To be honest, the battleship still outshined the carrier in the number of naval engagements in WW2. And the strike on Pearl Harbor WAS ineffective, since it only sunk obsolete ships and didn't damage the facilities (granted by a stroke of luck the carriers weren't there). My vote is solidly for "not very forward thinkers". The court-martial of Billy Mitchell bears that out. Forward thinking in the US military has never been a strong-suit - when it happens, it's remarkable.

[Polaris]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

Gravity.

[Gravy]

Forward thinking in the US military has never been a strong-suit - when it happens, it's remarkable.
And THAT'S why we need the forward thinkers in the Project for a New American Century." I'm calling for a new Taranto! Who's with me?

[WildCat]

I'd like to get people's opinion on this. I turned down a request to be a guest on the Philadelphia morning radio show of Michael Smerconish. (http://www.mastalk.com/mastalk/front.jspx) He's a pretty big player: big market, drive-time, sells books, wins awards, subs for Bill O'Reilly on his radio show.

But I don't like his politics. He's right-wing, thinks this country is full of "pussies" for not executing Moussaoui, that kind of thing.

I have no qualms about my decision as it relates to one show. But if I get more requests like that, i'm wondering what to do. I don't want to appear to be lending my voice to causes I dislike. Then again, the opportunity to reach a lot of people with FACTS doesn't come along every day.

I'm sure Dylan Avery sweats over this kind of thing every day.

That's a joke.

Your thoughts?
Why should the host's politics matter? Think of the audience you'll reach. You'll never get on the radio if you require such high standards for the host. ;)

[Gravy]

Why should the host's politics matter? Think of the audience you'll reach. You'll never get on the radio if you require such high standards for the host. ;)
It matters because I don't control how the show goes, and these shows get ratings by being provocative, not by being sensible. Let's just say that i'm...skeptical.

eta: I guess I'm also influenced by my criticism of Avery for talking to Hufschmid, JZ Knight, and their ilk.

[buffalocust]

And THAT'S why we need the forward thinkers in the Project for a New American Century." I'm calling for a new Taranto! Who's with me?


Make it a new Toronto and I'm in. GO LEAFS!

[Tailgater]

I agree with Wildcat. Even if you flame on the show, if you get a % of people to take a look at your work and spread it around, it would be worth it. Always find out the format, time you have, and how much you can advertise your work first. Don't know what to do about downloading file gravy. My comp just doesn't like it. Loads real slow, then page not found:( Think I have enough info to go without it:)

[Gravy]

Don't know what to do about downloading file gravy. My comp just doesn't like it. Loads real slow, then page not found:( Think I have enough info to go without it:)
Did you try the HTML version?

[Tailgater]

Yes. Neither one will load. I've had trouble lately with some links not loading, so I'm thinking it's my dsl. Wife wanted to switch from cable for satellite and I miss it already.

[WildCat]

Yes. Neither one will load. I've had trouble lately with some links not loading, so I'm thinking it's my dsl. Wife wanted to switch from cable for satellite and I miss it already.
Re-boot your modem, and if that doesn't work do a spyware scan.

[hellaeon]

It matters because I don't control how the show goes, and these shows get ratings by being provocative, not by being sensible. Let's just say that i'm...skeptical.

eta: I guess I'm also influenced by my criticism of Avery for talking to Hufschmid, JZ Knight, and their ilk.

Let him know your going to record you r own version at the same time
Get a recordable MP3 player. That way if they BS, you can release your version.

[WildCat]

Let him know your going to record you r own version at the same time
Get a recordable MP3 player. That way if they BS, you can release your version.
I doubt any radio station would agree to that.

[NobbyNobbs]

I love squibs. I think they're best when you fry them in a light beer batter with a sprinkle of pepper and a squeeze of lemon, then dip them in cocktail sauce. Just don't cook the squibs too long, or they get chewy and...

Oh. Never mind.

[Regnad Kcin]

Gravy, I'd have a nice, polite chat with the producer. State your concerns and see how they respond.

If you do choose to go on the show, please prepare yourself with a top 10 talking points -- a "greatest hits," if you will. These would be those items you feel support the issue from your perspective, not to mention reveal the weakness of the counter-argument. The reason is to guard against a shotgun approach on the part of the host. There simply will not be enough time to cover the countless allegations of "Loose Change" and you will want/need to stay focused.

By the way, are you skilled at public speaking? Ever been on the radio before?

[Gravy]

Gravy, I'd have a nice, polite chat with the producer. State your concerns and see how they respond.

If you do choose to go on the show, please prepare yourself with a top 10 talking points -- a "greatest hits," if you will. These would be those items you feel support the issue from your perspective, not to mention reveal the weakness of the counter-argument. The reason is to guard against a shotgun approach on the part of the host. There simply will not be enough time to cover the countless allegations of "Loose Change" and you will want/need to stay focused.

By the way, are you skilled at public speaking? Ever been on the radio before?
Good advice. To be clear, these folks are right-wing anti 9/11 conspiracy-theory types. I have no problems with public speaking, but this was on very short notice, so I said no rather than jump into murky water. I didn't get involved in this for its entertainment value.

[Pardalis]

I'd like to get people's opinion on this. I turned down a request to be a guest on the Philadelphia morning radio show of Michael Smerconish. (http://www.mastalk.com/mastalk/front.jspx) He's a pretty big player: big market, drive-time, sells books, wins awards, subs for Bill O'Reilly on his radio show.

But I don't like his politics. He's right-wing, thinks this country is full of "pussies" for not executing Moussaoui, that kind of thing.

I have no qualms about my decision as it relates to one show. But if I get more requests like that, i'm wondering what to do. I don't want to appear to be lending my voice to causes I dislike. Then again, the opportunity to reach a lot of people with FACTS doesn't come along every day.

I'm sure Dylan Avery sweats over this kind of thing every day.

That's a joke.

Your thoughts?

My personal opinion on the subject is that I believe it wouldn't be good to do what Avery is doing, wich is go talk on alternative shows and venues where the listeners are already convinced of what he's saying. What's the point of talking to people who are only one-sided, that will agree with you what ever you say?

In Avery's interview you posted earlier, the interviewer asks him about three times who planted the explosives in WTC7. Avery of course doesn't say and talks about people and cops hearing explosions (and blah blah blah) and the interview goes on to other 9/11 topics. A normal interviewer, if there is one, should have seen through Avery's misleading answers and should have continued on the subject until proof was said about who did indeed have planted these explosives (of course nobody).

People who will believe one side of the story no matter what are incapable of argumentation. Argumentation is I think your forte. When people will hear you actually respond to every doubt an interviewer might have on the official story, and give actual proofs to back it up, the listeners won't have a choice but to acknowledge how stupid the CTs are.

[CurtC]

BTW, just wanted to make a big public thanks to CurtC for all his work on the HTML version. I just checked out the working table of contents. Awesome! I know that was a huge amount of work. You made something far more useful out of my scribblings.Don't thank me - thank regular expression find & replace!

Actually, I did have to hand-tag each of your comments and quotes, and although regexp did most of the work on the index, I had to do a lot of clean-up, mostly because I had split it into six web pages.

I think that next I'll compile a list of suggestions for you. Are you ready to address the work again?

[dubfan]

But if I get more requests like that, i'm wondering what to do. I don't want to appear to be lending my voice to causes I dislike. Then again, the opportunity to reach a lot of people with FACTS doesn't come along every day.

I'm sure Dylan Avery sweats over this kind of thing every day.

That's a joke.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts: if it's only the politics of the host that's getting in the way... I hope you reconsider. As you point out, you don't have many opportunities to reach so many people with facts all that often.

Something else to consider: I think that the fact that your politics don't align with the host actually gives you enormous credibility. Mention that -- when you go on say, you know, I really don't agree with your politics, and I don't want my appearance to be construed as support for your politics, but we agree on the issue of these conspiracy theories, and I'm here to help shed what light I can on things.

I think it's important to establish you're not simply carrying water for Bush. State that you don't like him, that you disagree with his policies or whatever, but that doesn't mean you have to accept this preposterous nonsense that's put forward by the CTs.

[geggy]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

http://rys2sense.com/images/jap911.JPG

[Shrinker]

http://rys2sense.com/images/jap911.JPG Which one is you?

[Stellafane]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

Heh heh heh...I see Agent Macfarlane has convinced you to join the conspiracy. Welcome!

To any other CT'ers out there, you can no longer trust geggy, he's on our side now. His repeated use of the code phrase "The power of Christ compels you" (which actually means "All hail the great leader GWB") proves he has joined the family.

ETA: What's with the picture of the three girls? Do they even know what the sign behind them says (assuming it's actually there and not PhotoShop'd in or something)? Me, I think this pic represents a lot of wishful thinking on your part because I don't think there's three girls in the whole world that believe your Loose Change crap -- aren't you all adolescent boys, or "men" who never progressed past adolescence emotionally?

[Belz...]

-I'm 100 percent certain the nist, sept 11 commissioners and supporters of the official story will fold like wet tortillas after being offered to debate with team liberty.

If they have the level of discourse acumen you display, it should be really funny.

If the bush admin had blocked inquiry into nsa spying/torture scandals, why in the world would they openly debate on this matter? It's just as big of a fantasy as oprah discussing sept 11 publicly, since that her magazine is owned by the hearst corporation, who also owns popular mechanics and the history channel, the big "supporters" of the official story.

...

[bob_kark]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

http://rys2sense.com/images/jap911.JPG

Oh wow! I believe you now! You may have only made posts that were quickly debunked in the past, but a picture of Japanese school girls in front of a sign that reads "911 = Inside Job" proves you must be right! Excellent work Geggy!

And yes, the power of Christ compels us all.

[Belz...]

first squib going off the allow the top to fall without toppling over and break into pieces.

First off, you don't know the purpose of these "squibs", or are you now a structural engineer ?

second squib ejecting to allow the portion above to fall without toppling over and break into pieces

Second... TWO squibs ? You really think THAT would bring the WTC down ? Do you have amnesia or something ?

[Belz...]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?

Gravity.

[Belz...]

Right and all the witnesses are lying.

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?

Aren't you contradicting yourself, there ?

[chipmunk stew]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

http://rys2sense.com/images/jap911.JPG Yes, geggy. It's just as stupid in Japanese.

[gruk]

Sorry, but we have to pay you in herring. Don't ask, its complicated.

As long as it's fresh. I've had enough sourherring to last me a lifetime or two.

[chipmunk stew]

My thoughts: if it's only the politics of the host that's getting in the way... I hope you reconsider. As you point out, you don't have many opportunities to reach so many people with facts all that often.

Something else to consider: I think that the fact that your politics don't align with the host actually gives you enormous credibility. Mention that -- when you go on say, you know, I really don't agree with your politics, and I don't want my appearance to be construed as support for your politics, but we agree on the issue of these conspiracy theories, and I'm here to help shed what light I can on things.

I think it's important to establish you're not simply carrying water for Bush. State that you don't like him, that you disagree with his policies or whatever, but that doesn't mean you have to accept this preposterous nonsense that's put forward by the CTs.Well, Gravy, I was going to suggest that you avoid accusations of "teaming up" with people who could be seen as cozy with the Bush administration, but I think dubfan's suggestion is even better.

I would definitely be cautious, though. And I think that Pardalis makes a good point about the value of argumentation.

[kookbreaker]

Good advice. To be clear, these folks are right-wing anti 9/11 conspiracy-theory types. I have no problems with public speaking, but this was on very short notice, so I said no rather than jump into murky water. I didn't get involved in this for its entertainment value.

One thing I suspect your host might do is try to turn this conspiracy fighting into an anti-liberal rant. In fairness, there is a something of a tilt to the left among the CT crowd. I would say be armed with a list of right-wingers who subscribe to the CT theories. Also be ready to point out that most conventional leftist bloggers and the like have steered away from the CT crowd.

[Beerina]

I'd like to get people's opinion on this. I turned down a request to be a guest on the Philadelphia morning radio show of Michael Smerconish. (http://www.mastalk.com/mastalk/front.jspx) He's a pretty big player: big market, drive-time, sells books, wins awards, subs for Bill O'Reilly on his radio show.

But I don't like his politics. He's right-wing, thinks this country is full of "pussies" for not executing Moussaoui, that kind of thing.

I have no qualms about my decision as it relates to one show. But if I get more requests like that, i'm wondering what to do. I don't want to appear to be lending my voice to causes I dislike. Then again, the opportunity to reach a lot of people with FACTS doesn't come along every day.

I'm sure Dylan Avery sweats over this kind of thing every day.

That's a joke.

Your thoughts?

I'd have done it -- a calm, well-reasoned, and entertaining response is what the doctor ordered.

By the way, we are pussies for not executing Mussououououiiii. What's your response? Come on, dead air is boring and doesn't get you invited back. Quick, quick!

[chipmunk stew]

A nicely-written column highlighting why these conspiracy theories are not merely innocent question-asking, but rather a dangerous export:

If you can portray the United States as a nation without scruples, of course, that makes it so much easier to rationalize your own instinct for tyranny, your own subservience to a military-industrial complex. As one analyst told The Moscow Times, “Russia wants to be another wolf.” So does China. So does … Iran.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12759539/site/newsweek/

[Beerina]

Just saw it on the local news (NBC 5 Chicago), not much to see on the video. It's moving way too fast, but you can tell it's bigger than a missile and has AA paint. I can't believe it took over 4 years of Hollywood manipulation for thet! ;)

It's true!

If they were gonna fake it, they'd have made a nice, crystal-clear shot of an actual airplane. That it's a blur proves it's real.

...unless they thought of that, and made it a blur deliberately because they realized someone would be on to them if it was too clear of a shot.

Those crafty bastards!

[milesalpha]

Forgot about Taranto. Didn't know the depth of thar harbor, or whether it was torpedos anyway. To be honest, the battleship still outshined the carrier in the number of naval engagements in WW2. And the strike on Pearl Harbor WAS ineffective, since it only sunk obsolete ships and didn't damage the facilities (granted by a stroke of luck the carriers weren't there). My vote is solidly for "not very forward thinkers". The court-martial of Billy Mitchell bears that out. Forward thinking in the US military has never been a strong-suit - when it happens, it's remarkable.

Well, I think Midway was the clear end of the battleship as the capital ship of the navy. The only nation that displayed any type of forward thinking was Germany (at least at the upper levels), and then only in selected areas. The construction of Bismarck and Tirpitz (as well as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the pocket battleships) was truly stupid by any standard.

[aggle-rithm]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

http://rys2sense.com/images/jap911.JPG

http://www.johnmreese.net/mallory1.jpg

[milesalpha]

Y'know I have been debating the 9/11 conspiracy thing over at a forum named Yahooka (stoners debating politics) and this is the kind of frustration I face. (summarized)

CTer: The video clearly shows a missile. Rumsfeld said it!

Me: Ok how do you reconcile the eyewitness accounts of an aircraft.

CTer: Eyewitnesses can by wrong I don't trust them.

Two posts later he has shifted back to the WTC (bombs blew it up). I request any supporting documentation from structural engineers or appropriate authorities with credentials.

CTer: (posts a video of the firemen talking about explosions immediately after the collapse)I don't need anyone with credentials, these are the guys I trust.

Me: Erm, but these are eyewitness accounts, you just said.....

No reply in the last 24 hours after he posted every 10 minutes. Small wonder I am losing my hair.

The common theme I run into is that they do their own "research" despite having no background to do so. Most of them ridicule the idea of experts. I urge them to visit the local butcher for their next medical problem since they don't need anyone with silly credentials.

[aggle-rithm]

I'd have done it -- a calm, well-reasoned, and entertaining response is what the doctor ordered.

By the way, we are pussies for not executing Mussououououiiii. What's your response? Come on, dead air is boring and doesn't get you invited back. Quick, quick!

Mussausoo WANTED to be executed, so he could be a martyr. He DIDN'T want to be some murderer's girlfriend for the next fifty years.

So, I think we did the right thing. :)

[Hellbound]

Mussausoo WANTED to be executed, so he could be a martyr. He DIDN'T want to be some murderer's girlfriend for the next fifty years.

So, I think we did the right thing. :)

Personally, I think the right thing would have involved razor blades, salt, lemon juice, electrical shocks, rasps, electric belt sanders, and just enough medical support to prevent death.

But that's just me :)

[bob_kark]

Personally, I think the right thing would have involved razor blades, salt, lemon juice, electrical shocks, rasps, electric belt sanders, and just enough medical support to prevent death.

But that's just me :)

I dunno, Scrubs had a great form of torture last night. They tied up one of the doctors and made him listen to a barber shop quartet sing " I wan't my babyback, babyback, babyback. I wan't my babyback, babyback, babyback." Yet never sang "Chili's baby back ribs!" I'm sure it would cause a psychotic break within a few hours. We'd certainly need several teams of barber shop quartets to handle working 24 hours a day for 20 years, but I think it would be worth it.

[EGarrett]

I dunno, Scrubs had a great form of torture last night. They tied up one of the doctors and made him listen to a barber shop quartet sing " I wan't my babyback, babyback, babyback. I wan't my babyback, babyback, babyback." Yet never sang "Chili's baby back ribs!" I'm sure it would cause a psychotic break within a few hours. We'd certainly need several teams of barber shop quartets to handle working 24 hours a day for 20 years, but I think it would be worth it.
Wouldn't that be torture for the Quartet though?

I do like this idea though. What about making them listen to the first 30 seconds of "Enter Sandman" by Metallica? Just the build-up...over and over...without the song after it...

[farrisjs]

Looks like this massive conspiracy may have cost me a friendship, though I've told him I'd just as easily have a beer with him as argue with him.

On May 11th I received an email from him entitled Confronting The Evidence--The 9--11 Truth Movement in which, at great length, he described the far-reaching government conspiracy of 911, mentioned Loose Change, made reference to the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbour, The Project for a New American Century, and the New World Order, and encouraged me to check out links supporting the 911 conspiracy.

He was not amused when I responded with a list of links supporting the 'official' story, or debunking the contents of the links he had provided to me.

In an apparent appeal to authority, he tossed the names Steven Jones and Barry Zwicker at me, as though they have a monopoly on the truth. He became increasingly upset that I was unimpressed by their qualifications.

We corresponded back and forth via email, him getting increasingly emotional, me standing firm in my demand for evidence. Him resorting to name-calling and more emotional outbursts, me asking repeatedly for irrefutable evidence.

I told him I hadn't resorted to name-calling, or outright dismissal, I was "waiting for some FACTS to surface that show an elaborate conspiracy involving literally thousands of government employees, in dozens of government and civilian agencies, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Never mind the links to opinions, conjecture, speculation, or wishful-thinking, give me some MEAT. Give me even one name of a conspirator, or one document showing this elaborate scheme. Rumors, and claims by unqualified individuals just aren't convincing."

He became increasingly irrate.

A few minutes ago I received his latest email, filled with more emotional gems, heightened name-calling, and a plea I not send him any more on the matter lest he vomit (apparently because I've insulted his intelligence).

Too bad really, I've had some pretty interesting discussions with him in the past about topics suited for this message forum. He's not a bad guy, and it's really sad he's resorting to temper tantrums as impressive as anything my 11 kids have produced.

Reminds me of the Elbert Hubbard quote -- "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." --

Anyone else lose a friend over this?

RayG

I never lost a friend but my brother-in-law is big in the 911Truth.org so it has caused me some grieve at family get togethers. Most of the time he starts to talk about 911 I remain quiet and bite my tongue but its slowly build until I get angry. I don't argue the best when I'am angry especially after a few drinks. I wish I had the patience and knowledge of dubfan and gravy. This thread has helped alot for both knowledgable replys and emotional support to his illogical statements.

Steve

[chipmunk stew]

I never lost a friend but my brother-in-law is big in the 911Truth.org so it has caused me some grieve at family get togethers. Most of the time he starts to talk about 911 I remain quiet and bite my tongue but its slowly build until I get angry. I don't argue the best when I'am angry especially after a few drinks. I wish I had the patience and knowledge of dubfan and gravy. This thread has helped alot for both knowledgable replys and emotional support to his illogical statements.

SteveI'm hearing more and more stories like this. These CTs are dividing families over literally nothing. I'll offer the same thing I offerred Beerina on another thread. If you want to stage an "intervention", we're ready and waiting.

[bob_kark]

Wouldn't that be torture for the Quartet though?

That's why you'd need so many. Of course, it might be more effective to just tape them singing and pipe it into his cell.

I do like this idea though. What about making them listen to the first 30 seconds of "Enter Sandman" by Metallica? Just the build-up...over and over...without the song after it...

Oooh, that's good too, but not quite as annoying.

[Belz...]

The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you
The power of christ compels you

http://rys2sense.com/images/jap911.JPG

Oh well... if the Japanese say it, it MUST be true.

You've converted me.

[farrisjs]

I'm hearing more and more stories like this. These CTs are dividing families over literally nothing. I'll offer the same thing I offerred Beerina on another thread. If you want to stage an "intervention", we're ready and waiting.

I would love for you to do that. He has convert my inlaws to the "TRUTH" of 911 and has made his own movie about the WTC collapse. I would love to see him debate gravy.

Steve

[Belz...]

And yes, the power of Christ compels us all.

I find it far less than compelling, myself.

[bob_kark]

I find it far less than compelling, myself.

It compels you to not be compelled.

[geggy]

Aren't you contradicting yourself, there ?

So you admit there are conflicting reports? The molten pool indicated the metal melted at high temperature, so I think the steel did go over 600C but how can you prove it through observation on the steel without computer model? Oh right you cant cuz most of the steel has already been removed and shipped before anyone could obtain them for further evaluation. goshdurn it. What created the molten pool? It couldnt have possibly been caused by heat from the fuel cuz the tank of fuel in the plane has already went up in flames during the impact.

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible? Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fall...could it have been caused by an explosion? oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives. Oh yeah maybe it could be both! that might be it.

[Stitch]

And the garbage just keeps on spreading http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515824

[geggy]

Stellafane...

Macfarlane is a hardcore jew so he could have gotten warnings just like the other 4000 jews that didnt show up for work that day. :rolleyes: Just kidding. For all i know it could be just a coincidence. By the way have you ever watched the show American dad?

What's the deal, geggy? When you call someone a liar, you should be prepared to prove it or apologize. Are you a man or a coward?

I'm willin to apologize if you would provide the three things listed below...

1. Osama tape without the subtitles...I'm not talking about the first 3 minutes...the whole tape.
2. A link as to what may have started the fire in WTC7. Why didn't the fuel tank in the basement explode once the fire had been ignited?
3. A structeral engineer who isn't actually a member of ASCE and supports the pancaking theory.

I have no problem admitting my mistakes. I'm not going to cry over it. I'm just waiting for you to provide the three above so I can observe. That's all. I'm most convinced by the demolition theory, otherwise if you can change my mind, well then, congrats.

You called me a liar, *******. Prove it, apologize, or get lost. What kind of man are you?

:rolleyes:

Just a cowardly *******, then? Got it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So you admit there are conflicting reports?

He was pointing out your circumstantial definition of what qualified as evidence.


The molten pool indicated the metal melted at high temperature

A molten pool of metel would indicate that the metal got hot enough to melt. "high temperature" is relative.


, so I think the steel did go over 600C but how can you prove it through observation on the steel without computer model?

First you claimed the steel never got over 600C, now you say it did. Either way, the steel became hot enough to lose integrity. What is your point? Why is computer modeling of a situation where the construction material has known properties invalid, as you imply?


Oh right you cant cuz most of the steel has already been removed and shipped before anyone could obtain them for further evaluation. goshdurn it.

Already disproven, and irrelevent.


What created the molten pool? It couldnt have possibly been caused by heat from the fuel cuz the tank of fuel in the plane has already went up in flames during the impact.

Already addressed. There was sufficient flammable material in the building to generate the heat necessary for the steel to weaken, and for aluminum to melt.


Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction.

The visible debris has greater inertia, due to its mass, than the dust particles.


How was that possible? Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fall...could it have been caused by an explosion?

False dichotomy. Unless you can show where the building, collapsing under its own weight would not have sufficient energy to propel the debris in the manner observed you have nothing to prove it is an either/or situation.


oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives. Oh yeah maybe it could be both! that might be it.
Evidence?

[Curnir]

So you admit there are conflicting reports? The molten pool indicated the metal melted at high temperature, so I think the steel did go over 600C but how can you prove it through observation on the steel without computer model? Molten pools? Where?
Oh right you cant cuz most of the steel has already been removed and shipped before anyone could obtain them for further evaluation.
Um... No.
goshdurn it. Wow... What created the molten pool? What molten pool? It couldnt have possibly been caused by heat from the fuel cuz the tank of fuel in the plane has already went up in flames during the impact. *sigh*

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible? You havn't payed attention in this thread have you? One word 'Pancaking' Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fallDo you even know what freefall is?...could it have been caused by an explosion?Umm... No. Not even several.. this has all been explained in the thread... just a hint... READ IT oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives. Oh yeah maybe it could be both! that might be it.
*sigh*

[chipmunk stew]

What created the molten pool?
Acme brand Sooper Long-Burning Thermite

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible?
*sigh* I already told you. Acme brand rockets.

[Gravy]

Stellafane...

Macfarlane is a hardcore jew so he could have gotten warnings just like the other 4000 jews that didnt show up for work that day. :rolleyes: Just kidding. For all i know it could be just a coincidence. By the way have you ever watched the show American dad?
Still here geggy? Remember calling me a liar? Are you going to put up or shut up? I've asked you several times here, and also by PM, to either back up your remark, apologize, or go away.

What kind of man are you? Please respond.

By the way, geggy is posting my PMs to him.

[farrisjs]

geggy I know that this has been said before but now I get to say it.

Questions are not evidence.

[Hellbound]

I still like my idea of a malfunctioning anti-gravity device.

You can't prove it wrong!!!!!!:czwacky:

[farrisjs]

I can, being a Federal employee I know all about the going on at Area 51. The greys didn't give use the plans for the anti-gravity device until the spring of 2002, they gave us non-drip frozen custard in 2001.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by gravy :
"You called me a liar, *******. Prove it, apologize, or get lost. What kind of man are you?"



What's this "****" ? I don't ever remember Gravy using foul language. Did you quote him right geggy? I've noticed you haven't attached a link to Gravy's quote. Please provide exact quote:

geggy, you called me a liar. Please prove it, apologize, or go away.

[bob_kark]

So you admit there are conflicting reports? The molten pool indicated the metal melted at high temperature, so I think the steel did go over 600C but how can you prove it through observation on the steel without computer model? Oh right you cant cuz most of the steel has already been removed and shipped before anyone could obtain them for further evaluation. goshdurn it.

How many times do we need to disprove this?

What created the molten pool? It couldnt have possibly been caused by heat from the fuel cuz the tank of fuel in the plane has already went up in flames during the impact.

Answered on post 4039 (http://http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1641289&postcount=4039)

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible? Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fall...could it have been caused by an explosion? oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives. Oh yeah maybe it could be both! that might be it.

Force = Mass * Acceleration. DIY math, take the mass of the top of the WTC and multiply it by its acceleration. It doesn't take a free fall speed to produce great force.

[Gravy]

What's this "****" ? I don't ever remember Gravy using foul language. Did you quote him right geggy? I've noticed you haven't attached a link to Gravy's quote. Please provide exact quote:
He's posting my PMs to him.

[Pardalis]

He's posting my PMs to him.

That's not right, doesn't PM stands for "Private Message"?

[kookbreaker]

3. A structeral engineer who isn't actually a member of ASCE and supports the pancaking theory.


Done.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

Do you get high off of being wrong?

[Belz...]

So you admit there are conflicting reports?

Of course. Any major catastrophy will generate a number of conflicting testimonies. This is why eyewitnesses are considered unreliable.

This doesn't mean that I didn't notice your dodge, however. You're trying to have it both ways: you WANT molten steel at the site, even though none of us here seems to have seen any evidence that were was, and at the same time you want to believe that the temperature present was ridiculously low, which is irrelevant if molten steel isn't present, anyway. You're not arguing that the reports are conflicting; those elements are important to your opinion of the events, and you cling to them.

The molten pool indicated the metal melted at high temperature, so I think the steel did go over 600C

A simple question should suffice here, geggy. ASSUMING there were pools of molten metal at the site, how would you know if they're steel ?

but how can you prove it through observation on the steel without computer model? Oh right you cant cuz most of the steel has already been removed and shipped before anyone could obtain them for further evaluation. goshdurn it.

So they should've left the steel there for, what, 60 years ?

What created the molten pool? It couldnt have possibly been caused by heat from the fuel cuz the tank of fuel in the plane has already went up in flames during the impact.

Speculation. Since fuel is liquid, it seems reasonable to assume that it went all over the place, igniting other things as it went. Since the WTC is a relatively closed environment, it seems hasty to conclude that temperatures could not have risen above 600C. But even so, all this is moot if there was NO STEEL at the site. So you should start by proving that there was.

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible?

Physics. Perhaps you should take a few courses.

Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fall...

No I didn't. You claimed otherwise. I'm just asking you to prove it.

could it have been caused by an explosion? oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives.

Again, your claim. I never said that.

[Ramooone]

Stellafane...

Macfarlane is a hardcore jew so he could have gotten warnings just like the other 4000 jews that didnt show up for work that day. :rolleyes: Just kidding. For all i know it could be just a coincidence. By the way have you ever watched the show American dad?

i didnt know macfarlane was a jewish name, any proof he's a hardcore jew? or just more speculation geggy?

[Stellafane]

Stellafane...
Macfarlane is a hardcore jew so he could have gotten warnings just like the other 4000 jews that didnt show up for work that day. :rolleyes: Just kidding.

Damn, ya had me going there for a second dude...good one. Good to see you have a sense of humor at least.

For all i know it could be just a coincidence.
So you admit that coincidences exist, right? I'm sure you can anticipate my next question: How can you ignore this rather striking (and some would say suspicious, even incriminating) coincidence, and not others that seem far more tenuous?

By the way have you ever watched the show American dad?
Just once, and it was kinda hard to get into -- basically a right-wing Family Guy from what I can see, but not as funny. The alien character seemed potentially interesting however (interesting that in Macfarlane's universe, it's the non-humans that seem to have the most sense). I'll give it another shot sometime.

[NoZed Avenger]

Personally, I think the right thing would have involved razor blades, salt, lemon juice, electrical shocks, rasps, electric belt sanders, and just enough medical support to prevent death.

But that's just me :)

Well, maybe not *just* you.

[Pardalis]

Hey geggy, here's some foul language you can actually quote me with:

****ing douchebag

[juryjone]

He's posting my PMs to him.

I reported this as a possible violation of rule 9.

You will not post a person's private information that is not otherwise
publicly available.

[Gravy]

Hey, now, let's try to keep this reasonably civil. I was just asking geggy to do what any adult would do who calls someone a liar: provide evidence or apologize. He has done neither, so I think the kind of person he is is self-evident. Only he knows what benefit he receives from trolling here, and why he seems to delight in being wrong. It's fitting that this is in the paranormal section. His behavior is beyond anything I've encountered before.

[rikzilla]

Done.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

Do you get high off of being wrong?

I think the "high" is from whatever chemical this guy has been huffing.

This is why I do so love the JREF forums. Here is a perfect opportunity for a deluded (or dishonest) ass like this geggy character to man up and admit that he's been had by the loosers. Here it is geg...grow and learn...that's what we do here at JREF. We grow, learn, and have a strong hearty laugh at the blinkered idiots and trolls who come here with their iron-clad biases, weak brains, or chronicly low self esteem which prevents such growth and education.

You and your addle-brained CT co-religionists are to be pitied your lack of potential. You live in a world of paranoid fantasy. One wonders how a person of your limited intellect manages to operate common household appliances whithout injury. :rolleyes:

-z

Canned food is a conspiracy you know....dreamed up by a nefarious cabal of can-opener manufactuers...proven by the question: "who benefited?"

[VicDaring]

From the "There is some good news" dept.

Someone at work started fwding 9-11 conspiracy nonsense around the office.

Now, the guy that started it doesn't buy it for a second, but he got kick out of sending it around to see who would believe it (and to annoy me).

Sure 'nuff, a few people start saying "You know, this makes some sense, anything is possible. This looks suspicious" blah, blah, blah.

One co-worker though, in fact the one that sits closest to me and has listened to my anti-psychic/UFO/paranormal/etc. rants for the last four years, reads the conspiracy stuff and says, "So what's the conspiracy? What are they saying happened? I'm not even sure what this is supposed to make me believe."

I hugged her. :)

[chipmunk stew]

To the credit of the LC admins, they allowed my registration as "stipmunk chew" to go through.

In the "Welcome New Members!" forum, I reintroduced myself:

Guess who's back
Back again
Chipmunk's back
Tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back
guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back..

I've created a monster, cause nobody wants to see Shady no more
They want Chipmunk, I'm chopped liver (huh?)
Well if you want Chipmunk, this is what I'll give ya
A little bit of reason mixed with some hard liquor
Some logic that'll jump start my heart quicker
than a shock when I get shocked at the hospital
by the doctor when I'm not co-operating
When I'm rockin the table while he's operating (hey!!)
You waited this long, now start debating
Cause I'm back, I'm on the rag and ovu-lating
I know that you got a job Ms. Cheney
but your husband's heart problem's complicating
So TheQue-S-T won't let me be
or let me be me, so let me see
They try to shut me down on LC2E
But it feels so empty, without me
So, come on and dip, bum on your lips
F*** that, c** on your lips, and some on your t***
And God willing, I'm gonna let you get your filling
I just registered as "stipmunk", F*** YOU DYLAN! [<---j/k!]

Now this looks like a job for me
So everybody, just follow me
Cause we need a little, controversy
Cause it feels so empty, without me
I said this looks like a job for me
So everybody, just follow me
Cause we need a little, controversy
Cause it feels so empty, without me


(To the mods & admins: This post is all in fun. Thank you for allowing my registration to go through.)
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4377

[Gravy]

To the credit of the LC admins, they allowed my registration as "stipmunk chew" to go through.
I like the new name even better! It'll be interesting to see if you are restricted to the "Skeptics" forum.

[Dave_46]

Since the WTC is a relatively closed environment, it seems hasty to conclude that temperatures could not have risen above 600C.

I think I've said this before. If there are flames in a flashed over fire compartment then the temperature has to be in the region of 800 deg C upwards.

Dave

[milesalpha]

Make it a new Toronto and I'm in. GO LEAFS!

Leaf fans are everywhere by god. Always believe!!!

(Maple Bud fan since 1967)

[bob_kark]

To the credit of the LC admins, they allowed my registration as "stipmunk chew" to go through.

In the "Welcome New Members!" forum, I reintroduced myself:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4377

You're pretty fly for a white guy.

[chipmunk stew]

You're pretty fly for a white guy.Is the whiteness that obvious?

[Yahzi]

CT's and Creationsists can't seem to accept that random events (AKA coincidences) do happen,
But if everything wasn't planned, down to the last detail, then that would imply their not being the center of the universe was just an accident, not a dramatic secret staging technique that will suddenly be revealed at the end of the show.

[bob_kark]

Is the whiteness that obvious?

Well, your mask is pretty white.

[aggle-rithm]

The alien character seemed potentially interesting however (interesting that in Macfarlane's universe, it's the non-humans that seem to have the most sense).

"If he drops dead, don't expect me to do that E.T. thing with the finger, cause that's just a great big load of crap."

-- Roger the alien, American Dad

[Yahzi]

The BBC this morning mentions Loose Change:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4990686.stm

In the sternest possible words, no less:

The theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames.

To understand the conspiracy theory, it is worth considering a film called Loose Change: 2nd edition...

There are, of course, answers to all of the above, to be found in the report of the 9/11 Commission, in other technical assessments and in common sense.

The most glaring gap in the theory is surely this. If AA77 did not end its flight hitting the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?

This appears to be of little relevance to 9/11 theorists. In the course of an e-mail exchange with one of them I asked this question and was told that for all she knew, the plane could have been diverted somewhere and the passengers gassed.

And the single most telling comment, which I would love to see some confirmation on:

The film is the work of three young American videomakers, who started off making a fictional film about how they revealed that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.
Now did Avery really discover a conspiracy, or did he just discover that fiction doesn't sell as well as controversial truth (ala "A Million Little Pieces")?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The BBC this morning mentions Loose Change:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4990686.stm

In the sternest possible words, no less:







And the single most telling comment, which I would love to see some confirmation on:


Now did Avery really discover a conspiracy, or did he just discover that fiction doesn't sell as well as controversial truth (ala "A Million Little Pieces")?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Wouldn't be surprising to find out he fancies himself a young Oliver Stone.

[chipmunk stew]

And the single most telling comment, which I would love to see some confirmation on:

The film is the work of three young American videomakers, who started off making a fictional film about how they revealed that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.
Now did Avery really discover a conspiracy, or did he just discover that fiction doesn't sell as well as controversial truth (ala "A Million Little Pieces")?

Inquiring minds want to know!Well, there is a video of Dylan talking about it. I think it's on youtube somewhere. I'll try to find it.

[RayG]

I'm hearing more and more stories like this. These CTs are dividing families over literally nothing. I'll offer the same thing I offerred Beerina on another thread. If you want to stage an "intervention", we're ready and waiting.

In my case I'm giving him a little extra leeway because his new-agey beliefs and distrust of authority caused him to delay going to the hospital until he was in such pain he could barely walk. They ended up removing part of his colon, and he went back in about a month ago for the second surgery. He seems to have an immense distrust of hospitals, governments, and scientists.

He tried to convince me to look into 'natural' methods of curing my gall bladder problems, but the only natural thing I've done is to eliminate eggs from my diet, and I've had no further attacks. When I had mentioned my gb discomfort he immediately shoved a book about naturopathy in my face and got quite emotional when I questioned the credentials and qualifications of the author. He seemed to think the author wouldn't have been allowed to write the book if he wasn't telling the truth. Wish I could remember the title of the book.

This morning I sat down and reviewed our email exchanges to see how many different nasty things he had either called me or attributed to me. Here's the result:

I'm impossible, hardened, fixed, hopeless, intractable, incorrigible, stubborn, a 'dumby', insulting, naive, a dupe, prejudiced, blockheaded, closed minded, a denialist, dismissive, ignorant, prideful, condescending, a bastard, uninformed,
illintentioned, unintelligent, insincere, out to lunch, and way outta line.

Sounds like I'm quite the party-pooper. I wonder if he labels everyone who disagrees in a similar fashion, or is that just reserved for me? :D

RayG

[Gravy]

Now did Avery really discover a conspiracy, or did he just discover that fiction doesn't sell as well as controversial truth (ala "A Million Little Pieces")?

Inquiring minds want to know!
I think the answer is evident in how Avery dealt with changes in the second version. He got rid of the "pod/missile" theory, which had been ridiculed by just about everyone. Great. That's an improvement to the video. But then he added the whole "flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland and the site at Shanksville is all fake and the black box info is fake and the passenger remains and personal effects are fake and the radar info is fake and and no phone calls were made," etc., etc. In the first version flight 93 did crash in Pennsylvania. Avery chose a wild fantasy to replace a boring reality. That's the kind of "truth" he's interested in.

BTW, does anyone know if Oliver Stone's film has a CT slant?

[Gravy]

I'm impossible, hardened, fixed, hopeless, intractable, incorrigible, stubborn, a 'dumby', insulting, naive, a dupe, prejudiced, blockheaded, closed minded, a denialist, dismissive, ignorant, prideful, condescending, a bastard, uninformed, illintentioned, unintelligent, insincere, out to lunch, and way outta line.

Just don't call Ray late for dinner! Seriously, though, what do your enemies call you? :D

[chipmunk stew]

Well, there is a video of Dylan talking about it. I think it's on youtube somewhere. I'll try to find it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZjJQWNQZog&search=dylan%20avery

He cops to it as soon as he opens his mouth.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

I think the answer is evident in how Avery dealt with changes in the second version. He got rid of the "pod/missile" theory, which had been ridiculed by just about everyone. Great. That's an improvement to the video. But then he added the whole "flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland and the site at Shanksville is all fake and the black box info is fake and the passenger remains and personal effects are fake and the radar info is fake and and no phone calls were made," etc., etc. In the first version flight 93 did crash in Pennsylvania. Avery chose a wild fantasy to replace a boring reality. That's the kind of "truth" he's interested in.

I'd like to see if this "young Oliver" has the *stones* to face the family members of the passengers of Flight 93 to see what their reactions would be?

Not likely. That's just one thing the CT's don't have the guts to do. It doesn't fit their empty agenda.

[bob_kark]

BTW, does anyone know if Oliver Stone's film has a CT slant?

You mean JFK? He leads you to believe that it was a CT. If you didn't know better, you could be fooled.

[chipmunk stew]

You mean JFK? He leads you to believe that it was a CT. If you didn't know better, you could be fooled.Not JFK...
WTC (http://www.wtcmovie.com/)

[Gravy]

I'd like to see if this "young Oliver" has the *stones* to face the family members of the passengers of Flight 93 to see what their reactions would be?

Not likely. That's just one thing the CT's don't have the guts to do. It doesn't fit their empty agenda.
Aah, you're wrong, Dinsdale! Avery did attempt to confront the families of flight 93 victims at the premiere of 'United 93," but security kept him away.

[kookbreaker]

Aah, you're wrong, Dinsdale! Avery did attempt to confront the families of flight 93 victims at the premiere of 'United 93," but security kept him away.

Lucky for him that they did. I expect the little weasel would fold like cheap tripod after the first punch.

[bob_kark]

Not JFK...
WTC (http://www.wtcmovie.com/)

Oh, I haven't seen this... I would be pretty surprised if it had a CT slant. I'm pretty sure he would be run out of Hollywood.

[chipmunk stew]

Oh, I haven't seen this... I would be pretty surprised if it had a CT slant. I'm pretty sure he would be run out of Hollywood.He may be anyway. This thing looks like a cliche POS to me. I have a feeling it's going to get panned big time.

[Manny]

Oh, I haven't seen this... I would be pretty surprised if it had a CT slant. I'm pretty sure he would be run out of Hollywood.Heh. I'm half-expecting one of those Hollywood whack-a-woos to start championing Loose Change.

/no, Charlie Sheen doesn't count.
//Susan Sarandon lives in New York, so probably not her.
///Loves the slashies!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Heh. I'm half-expecting one of those Hollywood whack-a-woos to start championing Loose Change.

/no, Charlie Sheen doesn't count.
//Susan Sarandon lives in New York, so probably not her.
///Loves the slashies!

My vote is for Nick Nolte.

[Gravy]

I have no idea if this is parody or not (at the end he says he just had his wisdom teeth removed).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4692467109707634632&q=Loose+Change+2

[bob_kark]

My vote is for Nick Nolte.

Good call! Though Tom Cruise follows a close second.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Aah, you're wrong, Dinsdale! Avery did attempt to confront the families of flight 93 victims at the premiere of 'United 93," but security kept him away.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Gravy.

How would it benefit him to confront the families? I can only guess that his motives are selfish ones and really have nothing to do with "The Truth". The families have been going through a public, four year + grieving process and he wants to capitalize on that? It's just twisted.

BTW, thanks to Gravy and all who have contributed to this thread on the side of sanity. It's been an eye-opening and often disturbing experience. I'll continue to observe from a distance and allow those who are qualified to carry on.

[bob_kark]

I'll continue to observe from a distance and allow those who are qualified to carry on.

Don't worry, CTers never let a lack of qualificaitons stop them. Me either for that matter...

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Don't worry, CTers never let a lack of qualificaitons stop them. Me either for that matter...

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to be a globalist or even a henchman, for that matter. Maybe there's a Globalist/Henchman fanclub I could join,

[bob_kark]

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to be a globalist or even a henchman, for that matter. Maybe there's a Globalist/Henchman fanclub I could join,

You could be our charter member!

[Dinsdale Piranha]

You could be our charter member!

OK. I'm working on it.

First, I need a list of names of all the Globalists/Henchmen currently contributing to this thread.

After I get everything arranged, I'll start the club in the Forum Community.

Deal?

[Gravy]

How would it benefit him to confront the families?
Publicity. He constantly accuses them of taking "hush money" from the government (he makes that accusation in the video Chipmunk linked to above). On the LC forum, other CTs believe that the families of victims are all actors working for the government. I'm serious.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Publicity. He constantly accuses them of taking "hush money" from the government (he makes that accusation in the video Chipmunk linked to above). On the LC forum, other CTs believe that the families of victims are all actors working for the government. I'm serious.

Mind boggling.

I hesitate to look at some of the CT links at times because of their truly disturbing, twisted nature. I have difficulty looking at them objectively without getting into a seething rage at their vitriol.

I don't know how you guys put up with it. The same **** day after day, over and over, ad infinitum.

[Silly Green Monkey]

What does he think of Kaz, who claims to have been there?

[bob_kark]

OK. I'm working on it.

First, I need a list of names of all the Globalists/Henchmen currently contributing to this thread.

After I get everything arranged, I'll start the club in the Forum Community.

Deal?

Well, since that is Top Secret, I suppose I can tell you. The one's I know of are:

Delphi_Ote
Wild Cat
Belz
Brodski
me

senorpogo is a government shill. I suppose that counts for something.

ETA: Sorry if I missed anyone.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Well, since that is Top Secret, I suppose I can tell you. The one's I know of are:

Delphi_Ote
Wild Cat
Belz
Brodski
me

senorpogo is a government shill. I suppose that counts for something.

ETA: Sorry if I missed anyone.

How about Gravy, Huntsman, Chipmunk Stew?
Maybe they could be "Honorary" for now.
Anyone else you can think of?

[bob_kark]

How about Gravy, Huntsman, Chipmunk Stew?
Maybe they could be "Honorary" for now.
Anyone else you can think of?

They're always welcome to join. Don't tell anyone, but I never filled out an application, I just started stealing socks...

ETA: If you really want to know who has supported the thread, the list is too great to mention. Many JREF members have done an excellent job in helping to debunk the CT. I'm frequently amazed at some of the fantastic points made in this thread. We're a sharp group. Well, maybe not me, the rest are though.

[farrisjs]

You can count me in but I'am a government shill also.

[CurtC]

I don't know how you guys put up with it. The same **** day after day, over and over, ad infinitum.Just makes you wanna nail somebody's head to the floor, doesn't it?

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Just makes you wanna nail somebody's head to the floor, doesn't it?

...and pull their liver out.

[Gravy]

Since Chipmunk Stew has been allowed to register as stipmunk chew on the LC forum, he's wasted no time. The first shots from his 74-gun broadside ( I recommend reading it all):
I believe Loose Change is a load of BS.

I don't buy the idea that Dylan and co. are "just asking questions."
The slogan I hear over and over again is: "9/11 was an Inside Job!"
That's an accusation, not a question.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4390


edited to fix link

[RayG]

Well, since that is Top Secret, I suppose I can tell you.

Top Secret? Top Secret? HA! Top Secret is for girlie men. You want to really find out the nation's secrets you gotta bump that up to at least Top Secret Umbra. (Don't forget to add the US/UK/CAN/AUS/NZ EYES ONLY)

:cool:

RayG

[bob_kark]

Top Secret? Top Secret? HA! Top Secret is for girlie men. You want to really find out the nation's secrets you gotta bump that up to at least Top Secret Umbra. (Don't forget to add the US/UK/CAN/AUS/NZ EYES ONLY)

:cool:

RayG

Ugh, I'm too tired for Top Secret Umbra. I'd hate to have to notify half the world tonight...

[RayG]

Ugh, I'm too tired for Top Secret Umbra. I'd hate to have to notify half the world tonight...

Heh, guess we won't be cranking that baby up to COSMIC TOP SECRET then. ;)

RayG

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm a government shill also.

Do I have to give up my cupcake loser moron membership in order to become a Globalist Henchman?

[milesalpha]

I'm a government shill also.

Do I have to give up my cupcake loser moron membership in order to become a Globalist Henchman?

I'm not a government shill but I play one on TV. Need a mascot?

[bob_kark]

I'm a government shill also.

Do I have to give up my cupcake loser moron membership in order to become a Globalist Henchman?

As long as you're entirely effecient in being completely inept, except when it serves no purpose, you're an ideal candidate. And no, I'm fairly sure we're all cupcake loser morons.

[Hutch]

Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Just a diversion. I watched the Pentagon tapes again, and it seems the fuel and explosion were mostly at the outer wall of the Pentagon (as you would expect from fuel-laden wings hitting the wall). But if it had been a missile as the CT'ers claim, and it did the damage shown to the inner rings of the Pentagon, wouldn't the missile have had to penetrate deeply into the building and then explode? So that the explosion would have blown the outer wall outward and the fireball would have been at the inner ring?

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?

[Hellbound]

[QUOTE=bob_kark;1644341]They're always welcome to join. Don't tell anyone, but I never filled out an application, I just started stealing socks...QUOTE]

Um, bob?

No one completes the application...that's the secret method to get in.

I started mine 15 years ago...I'm almost a tenth of the way done with it.

[Polaris]

If they have the level of discourse acumen you display, it should be really funny.



...

I'd love to see Rumsfeld chuck holy water on Condoleeza Rice and shout "the power of Christ compels you, bitch!" (Family Guy dipped into that well more than once).

[Mr. Skinny]

As long as you're entirely effecient in being completely inept, except when it serves no purpose, you're an ideal candidate.
I'm the ideal candidate then, praise Ed! I was even inefficient enough to not correct your spelling, or put that [sic] thingy in your quote.

Now is that inefficiency, or not?

[Polaris]

Well, I think Midway was the clear end of the battleship as the capital ship of the navy. The only nation that displayed any type of forward thinking was Germany (at least at the upper levels), and then only in selected areas. The construction of Bismarck and Tirpitz (as well as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and the pocket battleships) was truly stupid by any standard.

Oh, clearly. Though Midway was remarkable for being the first ship-to-ship battle on open sea decided by carrier-based planes, those planes sank other carriers, not battlewagons. I grant you that the major Axis battleships that were sunk in WW2 were sunk by planes, but were those carrier-based planes or land-based? I don't know the fate of every Japanese battleship, but I'm pretty sure that more of them faced combat with other battleships than carriers. I think the advances in submarines were the biggest and most devastating advances in naval warfare in WW2, crippling the Japanese merchant marine.

[Mr. Skinny]

Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Hutch, my man...haven't talked to you since we met in Palmdale in '83. How ya been?

[bob_kark]

Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Just a diversion. I watched the Pentagon tapes again, and it seems the fuel and explosion were mostly at the outer wall of the Pentagon (as you would expect from fuel-laden wings hitting the wall). But if it had been a missile as the CT'ers claim, and it did the damage shown to the inner rings of the Pentagon, wouldn't the missile have had to penetrate deeply into the building and then explode? So that the explosion would have blown the outer wall outward and the fireball would have been at the inner ring?

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?

I think I remember something about a bunker busting cluster bomb. They invent new weapons all the time. Well, by invent, I mean claim that a weapon with magical powers exist without bothering to provide evidence or explaining how said weapon should function in the real world.

[bob_kark]

Um, bob?

No one completes the application...that's the secret method to get in.

I started mine 15 years ago...I'm almost a tenth of the way done with it.

Hey, just because it is common knowledge doesn't mean that I want everyone to know!

[Polaris]

.

Alright so the concrete didnt fly straight out of the building but it did get forced out further than the dust and fell in diagonal direction. How was that possible? Was it caused by the mass energy produced from the near free falling of the collapse? oh wait you said the building didnt fall at near free fall...could it have been caused by an explosion? oh wait Its impossible for the building to fall at near free fall speed without the help of explosives. Oh yeah maybe it could be both! that might be it.

Which can you throw further? A heavy baseball sized stone? Or a handful of light dust?

[bob_kark]

I'm the ideal candidate then, praise Ed! I was even inefficient enough to not correct your spelling, or put that [sic] thingy in your quote.

Now is that inefficiency, or not?

Excellent! I don't have the authority to accept your application. However, no one has the authority to deny your application. Therefore, you become a member by default.

[Polaris]

Of course. Any major catastrophy will generate a number of conflicting testimonies. This is why eyewitnesses are considered unreliable.

I'm going to try to head this off at the pass - before geggy uses this quote to prove all the Pentagon and Shanksville witnesses were mistaken.

Witnesses are unreliable in a "Witness mistook an Arab guy in a white Chevy for a Hispanic guy in a white GMC" way, not a "witness mistook a Bell helicopter on a tarmac for a pair of gay platypuses humping on a coffee table" way.

[Polaris]

Just once, and it was kinda hard to get into -- basically a right-wing Family Guy from what I can see, but not as funny. The alien character seemed potentially interesting however (interesting that in Macfarlane's universe, it's the non-humans that seem to have the most sense). I'll give it another shot sometime.

It's not right wing - it tries to make the ultra-patriotic jingoistic sabre-rattling dad the butt of the joke, but fails in the same way All in the Family tried to make Archie Bunker the butt of the joke. You're supposed to be laughing at the stupid patriot. It just seems so forced to me, like a 30-minute Bill Maher rant. Too much politics, not enough punchlines.

[Polaris]

Wouldn't be surprising to find out he fancies himself a young Oliver Stone.

So maybe he's just getting his Alexander out of the way early.

[dubfan]

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?

Only if you mention depleted uranium.

[hellaeon]

Just rmember, all you johnny-come-latelys have to wait awhile beofre promotion since us folks who have been convincing people we went to the moon instead of faking it in Area 51 have senority..

Just a diversion. I watched the Pentagon tapes again, and it seems the fuel and explosion were mostly at the outer wall of the Pentagon (as you would expect from fuel-laden wings hitting the wall). But if it had been a missile as the CT'ers claim, and it did the damage shown to the inner rings of the Pentagon, wouldn't the missile have had to penetrate deeply into the building and then explode? So that the explosion would have blown the outer wall outward and the fireball would have been at the inner ring?

Does that make sense as a question to ask at LC?

penetrate then explode backwards towards what it has passed.....

[hellaeon]

I just want to say I believe that in a criminal investigation they dont just take a witness testimony and thats it, they need evidence that points to the testimony being a reliable witness account.

I think that fact has escaped some of these people. Imagine trying to investigate 9/11 with all the data and trying to correlate where the testimonies fit the facts.

The whole bombs thing is classic. The CTers love to claim the whole "it sounded like bombs!" but the physical evidence completely rules this out - no explosive residue, no timers, nothing to physically hint that explosives were part of the fall of the WTC (which building? take your pick), yet the witness account is good enough for them to scream up and down. I dont get it. Thats why these witness accounts ARE NOT followed up. Its just conjecture. Anecdotal evidence.

[milesalpha]

Oh, clearly. Though Midway was remarkable for being the first ship-to-ship battle on open sea decided by carrier-based planes, those planes sank other carriers, not battlewagons. I grant you that the major Axis battleships that were sunk in WW2 were sunk by planes, but were those carrier-based planes or land-based? I don't know the fate of every Japanese battleship, but I'm pretty sure that more of them faced combat with other battleships than carriers. I think the advances in submarines were the biggest and most devastating advances in naval warfare in WW2, crippling the Japanese merchant marine.

This will be off the top of my head so excuse any missing. And due thanks to John Keegans books for filling my head with wonderfully useless information, until now.:D

Germans
Graf Spee: Scuttled after surface action 1939.
Bismarck: Scuttled after carrier aircraft attack and surface action 1941.
Scharnhorst: Sunk in surface action 1943.
Tirpitz: Sunk by Lancasters armed with dambuster bombs. 1944

Italy
Conte De Cavour: Sunk by carrier aircraft at Taranto
I think there was another but cannot remember.

Japan
Yamato: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1945
Musashi: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1944
Kongo: Sunk by submarine 1944
Haruna: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1945
Kirishima: Sunk by surface action 1942
Hiei: Sunk by carrier aircraft operating from Guadalcanal after surface action 1942
Mutsu: survived war, sunk at Bikini Atoll
Nagato: badly damaged by carrier aircraft, suvived war as coastal defence, Sunk at Bikini Atoll
Ise: Sunk by carrier aircraft 1945
Fuso: Sunk by destroyer torpedo attack.

I probably missed a couple, best I can do right now.

On the submarine, I agree the Americans devastated the Japanese merchant marine but I'm not so sure it was due to techological developments. The Japanese record is just atrocious. They rejected convoy tactics for all merchant ships until late in the war. Their ASW tactics were terrible, badly underestimating the dive depths of US subs. They did not develop an advanced radar, the number one weapon against submarine attack, Their sonar development was awful. Cooperation between merchant marine, regular navy and the air force was non-existent. For me, the development of the submarine as the new capital ship of the navy came in the post war period.

[NoZed Avenger]

...and pull their liver out.

At first. . . yeah.

[Regnad Kcin]

Today I purchased a copy of Roger Ebert's book "The Great Movies II." This, along with its predecessor, is not meant to be a Top 100 list, but is rather a collection of his thoughts regarding films he believes are noteworthy. Moreover, these are light essays, not reviews or detailed analyses.

In reading his piece on Being There, this stood out:

In the much-discussed final sequence of Being There, Chance [the lead character played by Peter Sellers] casually walks onto the surface of a lake. We can see that he is really walking on the water, because he leans over curiously and sticks his umbrella down into it. When I taught the film I had endless discussions with my students over this scene. Many insisted on explaining it: He is walking on a hidden sandbar, the water is only half an inch deep, there is a submerged pier, and so on. "Not valid!" I thundered. "The movie presents us with an image, it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since [director Hal] Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier -- a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more."
For all sorts of reasons, people are now looking at 9/11 and insist on devising explanations for it. But you can no more place squibs, or missiles, or remote control on those scenes than you can place a solid footing under Chance.

[CurtC]

Whenever I feel like checking the latest insanity at the Loose Change Forums, and I don't have a link from this thread in front of me, I've always Googled the phrase "loose change forum," and it was the first or second link. But I just did that, and guess what? The LC forum for is not on the entire first page! Nor the second page! I didn't look any farther, but this very thread is the second link, and the ScrewLooseChange blog is the third link. Every link on the first two pages that I checked out is to something where the CTs get slaughtered.

I know that Google can play around with the search results - do you think one of the fine folks over there has taken action to do the right thing?

[Trifikas]

Grrff..it's getting bizzare. I'm in the Philly Suburbs, and the local Sportstalk radio station had callers discussing the 9/11 events. The first caller I heard was a CT'er, and luckily the host wasn't falling for it. Asked the caller to name who was responsible, and he waffled.

They're like roaches. They show up when they think people are in the dark, And they scurry away when a light of reason is shined.

Trif

[Yahzi]

He cops to it as soon as he opens his mouth.
Just amazing.

Reminds me of Stan doing cold-readings on South Park:

Stan: "I'm going to do a trick now. What you are about to see is a trick."

Stan: <does trick>

Crowd: "Omigod! He can talk to the dead!"

[Yahzi]

One thing that nice policy review made clear is that what the conspiracy theories do is let Al-Queda off the hook.

Too bad we have, like, integrity and stuff. Otherwise we could start charging them with being dissinformers on the Isamofascist payroll.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We'll see where this post leads


QUOTE (DJLegacy2k1 @ May 18 2006, 01:07 AM)
As one of the most open minded people here I have to disagree with some points made here.

First, I got alot more name calling from people that side on the NIST report and against CTs. Most people quote PM, the Commission, and then resort to calling people names after that.

I don't believe alot of the wilder theories out there and most of my theories can be seen here on the board. I will say that JREF and this thread can not seem to keep a cool head in any debate, from either side.

I am in all of this to find the TRUTH. The government's story obviously is BS, and there are some crazy CT claims that are obvious BS as well. Somewhere in the middle though, they have to meet...Period.

If everyone could present their arguements without EITHER side getting mad and immature, then maybe some progress would be made.

I'm cracking down on BS from BOTH sides...So if anyone wishes to debate for either side, make sure you keep it clean and mature...

thumbsup.gif
/QUOTE

I find this post interesting. You state that you are involved in this to find the truth, but immediately follow that statement by saying that the government's story is obviously false. In scientific and criminal investigations, it is vitally important to examine the evidence as it presents itself, and to see where that evidence points. By entering your investigation under the bias that the government's position in in error you introduce confirmational bias into the examination of the evidence.

Coupling the introduction of confirmational bias to the pre-existing human failings of false positives/negatives yields great risk that the conclusions of the investigation will, if not be in error, at least be under suspicion.

Now, I certainly do not know the entire decision making process you went through to come to your current position, and I wish to give you the benefit of the doubt. So, I would like to pose a couple of questions that may help clarify your position to me:

1) On what grounds (pre 9/11 evidence) do you base your decision, that the government's explaination of the events is erroneous, upon?

2) Is there any hypothetical evidence, that could be provided, that would cause you to rethink your position on the events of 9/11?

Thanks,
AW

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8886446c0a3dd5126.png

I just couldn't resist :D

[Regnad Kcin]

Is that Adam Sandler? That would explain a lot.

[Pardalis]

Is that Adam Sandler? That would explain a lot.

No, that's Avery... How childish of me!:o :o :o

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We'll see where this post leads


You can search this board for my thoughts, views, theories, opinions on certain "evidence" and such.

I will not sit here and type up all of my thoughts and feelings. The point of a message board is to SAVE convos and data so you dont have to have every convo 999 times.

Search around the board then when you have a feeling on my basic stand points then I will disscuss them with you.


*dodge* *weave*

[hellaeon]

guys now I have become involved in a forum with the aussie metal scene in a debate on it, though thankfully, not too many people buy it.

Funnily enough I dont think it will take much, im getting an arguement about the 'buldge under the aircraft' (uuuuhhhhh) produced on 9-11 myths.

[Regnad Kcin]

You can search this board for my thoughts, views, theories, opinions on certain "evidence" and such.

I will not sit here and type up all of my thoughts and feelings.Good. How 'bout some verifiable supporting evidence then, since "thoughts, views, theories, [and] opinions" are worth exactly nothing.

Why is this seemingly simple concept so difficult for some to grasp?

[dubfan]

guys now I have become involved in a forum with the aussie metal scene in a debate on it, though thankfully, not too many people buy it.

It's all over the place. It's on the Movie & TV and Aviation/Space sub-forums of a very large automotive board I frequent, too, as well as a community board, where a new thread on LC pops up once or twice a week.

I think it's a conspiracy "perfect storm":

A bold & unlikely act of war with global implications, lots of eyewitnesses with sometimes contradictory testimony, unique & difficult forensic engineering problems, a secretive and unpopular government engaged in an unpopular war initially opposed to an independent investigation, and easily accessible and searchable info on the Internet...

Throw the conspiracy kooks in there to stir the pot and you've got a helluva mess.

ETA: I forgot another part of the perfect storm: Google video.

[Pardalis]

Throw the conspiracy kooks in there to stir the pot and you've got a helluva mess.

Especially with an important and potential dangerous issue like terrorism. UFO'S and the moon landing conspiracies are at least "entertaining", it's fun sometimes to mess with our brains. But with 9/11, we're not talking about little green men anymore, the "mess" these CTs are creating actually has serious repercutions.

[Ramooone]

heres a video of dylan on the cbc

http://resurrectingthelede.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-change-author-on-canadian.html

is it just me or is he growing a small hitler moustache

[Pardalis]

is it just me or is he growing a small hitler moustache

pubescent whiskers

[Ramooone]

pubescent whiskers

yeah well, i guess when you talk that much crap you're bound to get some on your lip.

i'm talking about dylan of course, so theres no confusion haha

[Gravy]

We'll see where this post leads
I had an email accusing me of using logic to argue my points.

[Gravy]

heres a video of dylan on the cbc

http://resurrectingthelede.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-change-author-on-canadian.html

is it just me or is he growing a small hitler moustache
If people have the time and the inclination, post a comment whenever you see something like this. Here's a standard comment that I post:

"Loose Change" – 426 errors, including 81 errors of fact, in an 80-minute video. It would be very, very hard to do worse than that.

Considering the seriousness of the subject, it would have been nice if Dylan Avery (who also believes that the Apollo moon landings didn't happen) had bothered to do some fact-checking.

For a hard look at the facts behind the claims in "Loose Change," go to http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8 (to view as HTML) or download the .doc file at http://tinyurl.com/epp82

[Belz...]

I'm going to try to head this off at the pass - before geggy uses this quote to prove all the Pentagon and Shanksville witnesses were mistaken.

Witnesses are unreliable in a "Witness mistook an Arab guy in a white Chevy for a Hispanic guy in a white GMC" way, not a "witness mistook a Bell helicopter on a tarmac for a pair of gay platypuses humping on a coffee table" way.

Ah yes. Thanks for clearing that up...

[aggle-rithm]

On the submarine, I agree the Americans devastated the Japanese merchant marine but I'm not so sure it was due to techological developments. The Japanese record is just atrocious. They rejected convoy tactics for all merchant ships until late in the war. Their ASW tactics were terrible, badly underestimating the dive depths of US subs. They did not develop an advanced radar, the number one weapon against submarine attack, Their sonar development was awful. Cooperation between merchant marine, regular navy and the air force was non-existent.

AND they ignored the submarine bases when they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Idiots.

[Gravy]

I got an email from a stalwart anti-CT who's been keeping up with the "Parliament screening" story, which I had thought was dead. He asked if I would post this here.

Dylan Avery on the Loose Change site:

"you guys know as much as I can tell you. and I can tell you the
screening will happen, regardless. i just off the phone with the Guardian.

the Monday after next (the 29th I believe) we'll be in there [in the Guardian], and the article will focus heavily on the Parliament screening, and Michael Meacher's decision to host it.

they can't back down. end of story."

Stalwart anti-CT in an email to Meacher's PA :

"I wonder if you could tell me whether the statement today by Dylan Avery
is corrector not?".

Meachers PA in an email to to me:

"After consideration Michael Meacher is not arranging for this film to be
shown in Parliament. If it is going ahead, another MP must be
sponsoring it. However, as Monday 29 May is a Bank Holiday and
Parliament is in Recess, if there is a showing it must be elsewhere."

Regards

Monica Masson
Parliamentary Assistant to Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
020 7219 4532

I think she mistakes Avery's phrase "we'll be in there" as being in
Parliament, whereas I think he means in the Guardian. But the clear
point is that Avery is still claiming Meacher as a sponsor and he
clearly is not. When you post it on JREF, I intend to post your post
on the LC site.

I emailed CBC last night and gave them details of your document. I'm
now off to try and email somebody at the Guardian and,funnily enough,
your document will be starring again. I wonder if he is [b.s.'ing]
about the Guardian as well?

Of course "they" can back down, as they apparently have done. Avery may be thinking that the Guardian reporter isn't going to check his story. He still has a lot to learn about fact-checking.

I don't know who at the Guardian would be covering this story. Any clues? I very much want to have a chat with that reporter.

[CurtC]

I had an email accusing me of using logic to argue my points.[Homer Simpson]
Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true! Facts, schmacks.
[/Homer Simpson]

[Dinsdale Piranha]

The Globalist/Henchman Fan Club is now a reality.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1645648#post1645648

For all who have been slugging it out here that I haven't mentioned, let me know. I'll make sure to add your name to *The List*.

[OMGturt1es]

guys now I have become involved in a forum with the aussie metal scene in a debate on it, though thankfully, not too many people buy it.


ahhhhh hah! i have been in 9/11 debates in a certain black metal forum, and the whole thing was a joke. i was virtually the ONLY one arguing that loose change was crap in every 9/11 based thread, and it was EXASPERATING. when i finally found THIS thread, it was like a breath of fresh air.

as much as i enjoy metal, i've been so detatched from the fan base for so long that i find it less and less appealing to be involved in any level, but i guess this is probably a problem that i'd encounter within any genre.

[dubfan]

"you guys know as much as I can tell you. and I can tell you the
screening will happen, regardless. i just off the phone with the Guardian.

the Monday after next (the 29th I believe) we'll be in there [in the Guardian], and the article will focus heavily on the Parliament screening, and Michael Meacher's decision to host it.

they can't back down. end of story."

This is classic Dylan. I've been reading his blog and noticed some interesting things about his writing style. When confronted by an uncomfortable truth, he'll wordsmith his way around it, so he can't actually be accused of *lying*, exactly.

you guys know as much as I can tell you
Not, "you guys know as much as I know". What can't you tell us, Dylan? Is the Parliament screening some kind of state secret?

"the article will focus heavily on the Parliament screening, and ..."
He doesn't say they're actually going to screen it.

"they can't back down"
Translation: I'm in denial that this MP is not going to show my film, after all.

Here's one of Dylan's blog posts that was really illuminating (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/04/lets-roll-papa-bear.html). Someone named "Dylan Avery" was caught posting some nasty comments at a prominent blog. Does Dylan deny that he and the commenter are different people? Not exactly.

Oh...and it appears someone with the same name as me had some pretty nasty things to say (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8103) back in 2003. I only bring this up because certain people seem to think this is solid evidence I'm a government plant, or a "Jew Hater."

No, it's just someone with the same name. That is all.

Just someone with the same name, he says.

Here's what the "other" Dylan Avery had to say:

OK.... Before we go calling 9-11 a synonym for Pearl Harbor, I want all you Never Forget pathetic whiners, to go ask A Professional Demolition Expert if the Planes caused the towers to fall. I guarentee you ANY Expert on Controlled Demolition will tell you that dynamite charges were placed in the Twin Towers, he could tell you that the first time he watched them fall. Sloppy job American Government, but then again they didnt think the vivtims families would start asking questions either:)
(Why did 19 terrorists get "lucky" 19 seperate times on their immigration papers when they presented some of the most flawed documents ever seen, a little too much "luck" if you ask me.) Just remember Osama bin Laden got real lucky when air force interceptors were told four times to sand down long enough for the planes to reach their targets, yet payne stewart had an interecepor to his private plane in the standard ten minutes..????????????????????????
9-11 We Will Never Forget the Corruption
-peace fools

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8095#c0105

All I have too say is......Who else knows.......Why were the innocent people of New York not warned?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8085#c0087

Sure doesn't sound like the same Dylan Avery to me. Just someone with the same name. That is all.

[RayG]

heres a video of dylan on the cbc

http://resurrectingthelede.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-change-author-on-canadian.html



Damn! I just sent the following comment to the host of that show before reading Gravy's 'standard comment' suggestion.

George, I just caught your 9-11 conspiracy interview with Dylan Avery via an online blog.

Anyone else notice Dylan had no explanation for what happened to the missing passengers? (keep in mind there were four planes not one)

Or that in explaining his single strongest piece of evidence --the collapse of building #7-- he provides not a single shred of actual evidence that the building was brought down by controlled explosives. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

An opinion remains an opinion unless you can back it up with verifiable evidence.

I recently lost a friend over this 9-11 conspiracy foolishness. It started with an email from him imploring me to join the "9-11 Truth Movement", and he became increasingly abusive when I stood firm in my demand for evidence.

In the content of his emails I was described in the following manner:

'Impossible, hardened, fixed, hopeless, intractable, incorrigible, stubborn, a 'dumby', insulting, naive, a dupe, prejudiced, blockheaded, closed minded, a denialist, dismissive, ignorant, prideful, condescending, a bastard, uninformed,
illintentioned, unintelligent, insincere, out to lunch, and way outta line.'

This seems to be a common tactic for supporters of a 9-11 conspiracy, in part I suppose, because of their frustration at not being able to actually provide any EVIDENCE.

Mr. Avery isn't merely asking questions as he contends, he's making some serious claims/allegations that remain unsupported by any verifiable proof.

Let's not be gullible and follow him along like sheep.

In a remarkable coincidence, Avery Tools, the leading tool supplier to the Sport Aviation Market, denied responsibility for creating the tool named Avery.

:D

RayG

[kookbreaker]

OK.... Before we go calling 9-11 a synonym for Pearl Harbor, I want all you Never Forget pathetic whiners, to go ask A Professional Demolition Expert if the Planes caused the towers to fall. I guarentee you ANY Expert on Controlled Demolition will tell you that dynamite charges were placed in the Twin Towers, he could tell you that the first time he watched them fall.

Wow. He wasn't paying attention or doing research back then either.

[Gravy]

OK.... Before we go calling 9-11 a synonym for Pearl Harbor, I want all you Never Forget pathetic whiners, to go ask A Professional Demolition Expert if the Planes caused the towers to fall. I guarentee you ANY Expert on Controlled Demolition will tell you that dynamite charges were placed in the Twin Towers, he could tell you that the first time he watched them fall.
Wow. He wasn't paying attention or doing research back then either.
Invisible demolitions experts inside one's head don't count?

[brodski]

I don't know who at the Guardian would be covering this story. Any clues? I very much want to have a chat with that reporter.
Mark Kermode already covered "loose Change" in the Guardian he was not supportive of Avery and co. http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1749999,00.html

The guardian does use a lot of freelancers, so tracking down a specific future story may be tricky.

[dubfan]

Richard Curtis, of 9/11 Scholars For Truth, gets a full-page Op-Ed to spill the standard CT line in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

9/11 Commission report is a lie

RICHARD CURTIS
GUEST COLUMNIST

Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May 8)

Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete fiction.

Connelly seems to assume that because the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan that we should accept its conclusions and recommendations. But is that true? Is the commission's story credible?

The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is untrue.

First, who were the hijackers? We do not know. None of those named appear on any of the passenger lists released by the airlines. Most important, six of the men named by the government are still alive and have never even been to the United States. We know that because European media (as reported by The Associated Press, the London Telegraph and the BBC) have interviewed them. It is not a matter of mistaken identity not being noticed or someone using a false passport. The commission insists that the people they named were the hijackers but that claim is demonstrably false.

If that most basic claim is false, and the information was available to the commission (which it was), and the commission still claims that it has given us "a full account" of what happened that day based on "exacting research," it's clear that the members are lying. In his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Dr. David Ray Griffin documents all that and concludes the whole report is one long lie.

Second, in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed. Those oral histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005. Only after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them. All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site. Why did the city fight so hard to keep them from the public?

It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?

In spite of Connelly's faith in what commission members say, the report seems to be an obvious cover-up. The question that we all need to ask is: What is the commission covering up? Was 9/11, in fact, an inside job?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/270284_connellyrebut16.html?source=mypi

The op-ed ran in Tuesday's paper. There are currently 148 online comments (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=270284)