Loose Change

[Indolent Wretch]

I wonder if any major world event has EVER happened without there being a conspiracy theory about it.

My guess is that there is probably only 1, and that's obviously the most important one!

[RayG]

I wonder if any major world event has EVER happened without there being a conspiracy theory about it.

My guess is that there is probably only 1, and that's obviously the most important one!

Obviously? :confused:

obvious - Easily perceived or understood; quite apparent...readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill...

JFK? Bigfoot? Roswell? 9/11? Pearl Harbor? etc. etc.

Which conspiracy theory should I think is obviously the most important one?

RayG

[bob_kark]

This one's a favorite. (http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_rotsnake/index.html) What does your "intuition" tell you is happening there?

Its obvious that you've installed some kind of brain tracking device so you can stop the circles from spinning when I look at them. How else would you explain why one stops only when I focus on it, yet the rest continue to spin, magic? Sure there's some technical mumbo jumbo about how it works. But why would I choose to believe a bunch of "so called" experts when they're obviously government plants! This website proves it! http://www.RotatingSnakeHoax.com (http://www.frenzy.com/~jester/racecar.html) Why aren't you open minded enough to believe me?!

[Sultanist]

Some points you might want to consider.

Human remains of every passenger on Flight 77 except one were recovered and identified.
(I wanted to include a link here to support this but I was advised that I'm not permitted to post urls to other sites)

This can hardly be explained away (as some have have tried to do) simply by saying "the government made this up".
We're talking about a team of pathologists, dentists, anthropologists, fingerprint specialists, radiologists, DNA technologists, photographers, morticians, etc.
Were they all a part of the "conspiracy" too? And why, pray tell, would all these physicians and scientists want to be a part of a "conspiracy" to cover up the worst treason and mass murder in United States history?
And even if we stretch our imaginations to the fricking Moon, and we accept the premise that all these doctors and scientists would want to do this, what are the chances that not one of them, in the five years since this happened, has had a change of heart and ratted this out? Because not one has.

No one ever bothers to stop and ask "why"?
We know for a fact that American Airlines Flight 77 took off from Dulles on 9-11 with passengers and crew. So if it disappeared, that would mean the supposed "inside jobbers" were in control of it.
So "why". Why would anyone, terrorists, inside jobbers, or anyone else in control of a damn airliner already, not want to use that airliner on the building? Why would it not occur to anyone with an IQ greater than 50 to use the airliner they were already in control of, and instead want to use something else? And then, as if by the use of some magic, not only have to trick all the potential eyewitnesses into thinking it was the airliner, but have to convince the whole entire world that it was the airliner, and then have to cover that up for perpetuity. Not to mention that it would require making the
300,000 lb airliner and all it's passengers and crew disappear.
Why not just use the airliner to begin with. Hello!!

And remember, this is Washington DC we're talking about here. There are four and a half million people running around here.
This is 2001. And in 2001 people have camcorders. Lots of em.
Now, here you are plotting to attack the Pentagon. And you come up with this plan to hijack an airliner.
But, instead of flying the airliner into the building, you decide to make that airliner disappear. And fly something else into the building. And then have to make everyone within sight think it's the airliner you're flying into the building.
Say what? In a city of four and a half million people? Many of whom will have camcorders? When all that has to happen is someone in the vicinity of the flight path happens to have a camcorder running and pointed in the right direction. A camcorder which captures the missile. Or the "other aircraft". Or the Starship Enterprise. Or whatever it is that aint Flight 77.
And unless you're dumber than the dumbest person who ever lived, you know that if this happens, your entire plot to convince the world that Islamic terrorists attacked the United States in the most heinous mass murder in the country's history, then goes out the window.
Because once the world learns that it aint Flight 77 captured by the camcorder, then Houston you've got a real big problem. Because not only does the Pentagon attack no longer make any sense, but the World Trade Center and all the rest is then immediately called into question as well.

Then there's Flight 93. And the claims that the cell phone calls were not possible.
The problem with the cell phone calls not actually coming from the Flight 93 airliner, is that if they didn't come from the airliner, then how do we explain them?
There's no disputing that EITHER scores of friends and family members received cell phone calls from their loved ones aboard Flight 93, OR scores of friends and family members were tricked into thinking they were talking to their loved ones aboard Flight 93.
And if it's the latter, then keep in mind this is mothers and fathers talking to sons and daughters. And husbands and wives talking to husbands and wives.
So now we need an explanation for how on earth this could have occurred? How could the "conspirators" have ever managed to make this happen?
Well, only one individual has come forward with any explanation. And that of course would be "Professor" A.K. Dewdney (you see like TV preachers, many conspiracy buffs have the title of "Professor" or "Dr.").

So now I give you Professor Dewdney's and the world's only attempt thus far to explain how this was accomplished.


The operatives first gathered personal data on regulars of the flight through a combination of data mining and human engineering. Then they leveraged that information by repeatedly taking the flight and engaging flight regulars in conversation to get personal details and record voice samples for study and practice.

On the big day, the operatives worked in a single "war room" with a big screen to keep them on the same page. Calls (except to strangers) were kept brief so that the callers could report details of the flight but not get into personal conversation that might alert family members to the fraud. Calls that went poorly (like the one to Mark Bingham's mother) were not repeated.

The quality of acting necessary to convince family members they were talking to their loved ones was lower than in a normal situation, given the allowance people naturally make for voice distress in stressful situations.By George it looks like Plan 9 From Outer Space has finally come to life.

And you should be advised that the good professor has worked out the whole rest of the conspiracy as well. He calls it "Operation Pearl". And here is his own synopsis of the key elements...


1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.

3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

5. Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).

6. This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.

Another question. Why would anyone have ever had any desire or any need or any motivation to use explosive demolition on the skyscrapers to begin with? Skyscrapers they'd already attacked with 300,000 lb airliners? What on earth would ever possess anyone to do such a thing, and then risk the very likely exposure of the whole plot by doing something so unbelievably stupid as trying to get away with installing all the explosives required to collapse these towers?
Why, when there was no reason to do so?
If there had been no collapse, the buildings would have remained "towering infernos" for the rest of that day, and on into the next day? The horror we saw for the first hour and a half would have continued on for that day and on into the next day. More people jumping 75 stories to their deaths from 110 story funeral pyres. The spectacular chaos of trying to rescue the hundreds still trapped in the towers would have continued on.
And all of that would have continued to be seen on television sets across the world.
Regardless of who is responsible, the message the events of that day were designed to deliver to Americans and the rest of the world would have been delivered in spades regardless of whether the towers ever collapsed.
So the question becomes, why would anyone have ever even bothered to collapse the towers?

Consider this. Here are newspaper front pages on the morning of 9/12.
(I wanted to include a link here to support this but I was advised that I'm not permitted to post urls to other sites)

As you see, just as many front pages show the towering infernos as show a picture of a collapsed building.
The newspapers which chose to show the towering infernos had plenty of photos of the buildings after collapse. But they decided the spectacle of the towering infernos was just as, if not more, spectacular and gut wrenching as seeing a picture of a collapsed building.
What you see on those front pages is what those who did this wanted the world to see. Regardless of whoever it was who did it, terrorists or "insiders".

There's another thing so many have a tendency to overlook before buying into these 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Even if you believe the supposed "conspirators" have no morals or scrupels whatsoever, that has no bearing on their own selfish feelings of self-preservation.
This would be hand's down one of the most heinous acts of treason and mass murder in the history of the world.
If a convincing case could be made to the American people that this indeed did occur, the entire populace would descend on Washington D. C. and probably personally visit justice on those responsible. And I promise you I would be at the front of the pack.
And the point is, that anyone who would ever even consider doing such a thing knows this.
And knows it better than you and I do.
It's a completely fantastic notion that anyone would ever do this knowing the personal penalty if found out. There's nothing which could be gained by doing this which justifies that risk.
And that's mainly why it never happened.

A couple of final points.

It's claimed that Larry Silverstein was a party to the demolition of the WTC because he wanted to swindle the insurance companies.

"In our view, Silverstein Properties knowingly and deliberately underinsured the WTC complex," Jacques Dubois, Swiss Re America Holding Corp. chairman and CEO, remarked. "We believe the record establishes that in order to save on premium dollars, Silverstein intentionally refused to insure against the risk of loss in excess of $3.5 billion."

"The evidence in today's brief reportedly reveals that Silverstein actually wanted to insure the WTC up to a $1.5 billion limit, less than half of the coverage he eventually bought. He only reluctantly agreed to obtain the higher $3.5 billion total loss limit after his lenders required it in order to protect their debt exposure."
(I wanted to include a link here to support this but I was advised that I'm not permitted to post urls to other sites)

Does this sound to you like the MO of someone who would purposely destroy his own property? When he knew full well he'd underinsured it to save on the cost of the premiums?

And lasty this...

"Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory"


Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed. Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)
(I wanted to include a link here to support this but I was advised that I'm not permitted to post urls to other sites)

[kookbreaker]

Welcome Sultanist, and good points to bring as well.

Did you have any trouble registering?

[chipmunk stew]

Welcome to the forums, Sultanist.

You raise a lot of questions. To most of them, I think most members here will respond: :con2:

I suggest that you repeat this post on the Loose Change forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=1) and see what kind of responses you get there.

Also, you can fake links by taking out the dots or something, then someone else can reply and post actual links.

[delphi_ote]

Woa:
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/yudayasensou.e.htm NSFW warning courtesy of kookbreaker

[kookbreaker]

Whoa indeed. A NSFW comment would have been helpful Delphi!

[delphi_ote]

Whoa indeed. A NSFW comment would have been helpful Delphi!
Sorry. Was there something up there not appropriate for work (aside from the nutty anti-Semitism) I didn't notice?

[Sultanist]

Thanks kookbreaker and chipmunk stew for the welcome.
And no, can't say I had any problem with the registration.

Don't know if this has already been posted to the thread, but here's an image link I would have also included.

pentagonresearch images/023.jpg (just put ".com/" between "pentagonresearch" and "images")

The yellow dots seen in this photograph are the five light poles which were clipped by the airliner as it approached.
The blue dots are the undisturbed light poles.
I'm not aware they've invented a "missile" with a 125' wingspan?

[dissonance]

Sultanist, that was an outstanding post. Nice work!

[Gravy]

Excellent post, Sultanist.

[chipmunk stew]

Thanks kookbreaker and chipmunk stew for the welcome.
And no, can't say I had any problem with the registration.

Don't know if this has already been posted to the thread, but here's an image link I would have also included.

http://pentagonresearch.com/images/023.jpg

The yellow dots seen in this photograph are the five light poles which were clipped by the airliner as it approached.
The blue dots are the undisturbed light poles.
I'm not aware they've invented a "missile" with a 125' wingspan?(edited to complete url)

[Sultanist]

Thanks folks for warming an old redneck's heart.
And thanks chipmunk for displaying that picture.

I've got to get to work, but before I go I'll leave you with this thought.
It's being said that as of now there are upwards of 600,000 pages on the Web devoted to the so-called 9-11 "Truth" Movement.
It's now even surpassed "Elvis is still alive".

[kookbreaker]

Sorry. Was there something up there not appropriate for work (aside from the nutty anti-Semitism) I didn't notice?

Yeah, that would be the nutty anti-semitism.

[chipmunk stew]

-----
Thanks for helping me with that last post, CS.

I would be grateful if you would do one more thing.

Please post this link (I tried twice but kept getting the "no can do" message).
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html)

It's a pretty good attempt at explaining why the towers may have collapsed.

Sultanist

[Thanz]

Quoted by Sultanist:
1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

2. Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.

3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

5. Back at the airport the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).

6. This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

7. Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.
Huh? Lets take all the people off of the planes, destroy other planes, then put all the extra people onto one plane and blow it up over land, where the remains of bodies are to be found, then blow up the extra planes over the ocean at night, where the bodies won't be found.

It's tough to come up with a worse plan. It really is.

[Regnad Kcin]

...It's tough to come up with a worse plan. It really is.Or one with any less evidence.

[Regnad Kcin]

...It's being said that as of now there are upwards of 600,000 pages on the Web devoted to the so-called 9-11 "Truth" Movement...The old JFKers were growing weary from stamping their feet and whining "back and to the left." It was only a matter of time before they moved on.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

[bunker]

It's a small enough mass to be blown into a large cloud around the structure and float slowly down to the ground. I'd imagine the effect of losing that mass is negligible.
We may have to agree to disagree, but this looks like a significant amount of material to me.

Shots of North Tower:

[bunker]

At least part of the "anvil" is assumed to fragile and absorbing energy, because each floor crushed becomes part of the "anvil." Once again, it's an inelastic collision.
And now that I've reviewed elastic and inelastic collisions, I think I understand what you're saying, but it still seems unfathomable that the upper portion of the building is not being destroyed as fast or faster than the bottom, especially considering, or assuming, that the lower floors are engineered to withstand more weight than the upper floors.

These two videos show the North Tower collapse:
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

For some reason the first one seems to have trouble playing when I paste in into my browser. It could just be my computer, but if one of you would be so kind as to repost these as links, others who might have the same problem could right-click and 'save as'.

Anyway, if you watch closely, you will see as the collapse progresses, much of the upper section disappears before the lower section (below the fire) is covered with smoke. The lower floors seem to be holding up quite well under the initial onslaught. This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own. This might lead one to suggest the I'm Bigger and Tougher than You Theory, as the lower 96 floor section might say to the 14 floor section. I'm just saying the upper section is sure going to get it right from the start, as these videos show.

[delphi_ote]

Yeah, that would be the nutty anti-semitism.
I just wanted to make sure I didn't accidentally link something pornographic! Sorry again, kookbreaker.

[delphi_ote]

Anyway, if you watch closely, you will see as the collapse progresses, much of the upper section disappears before the lower section (below the fire) is covered with smoke. The lower floors seem to be holding up quite well under the initial onslaught. This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own. This might lead one to suggest the I'm Bigger and Tougher than You Theory, as the lower 96 floor section might say to the 14 floor section. I'm just saying the upper section is sure going to get it right from the start, as these videos show.
But the falling "anvil" is collecting the mass of each floor it crushes and still has the original mass of the top floors (less the concrete dust.) Even if the upper stories' structural integrity is lost, the mass calculation is still more or less the same.

Please re-read this:
You could just as well assume half of a floor in the upper structure is crushed and half a floor in the lower structure is crushed. The mass falling is the same, the energy transfered into the structure is the same, and the time to fall is only slightly longer (because his simplified calculations assume that the "anvil" stories collapse at free fall. You could instead calculate how much of them isn't crushed during the fall and then calculate how long it takes that smaller structure to fall at free fall.)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And now that I've reviewed elastic and inelastic collisions, I think I understand what you're saying, but it still seems unfathomable that the upper portion of the building is not being destroyed as fast or faster than the bottom, especially considering, or assuming, that the lower floors are engineered to withstand more weight than the upper floors.

These two videos show the North Tower collapse:
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg
plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg

For some reason the first one seems to have trouble playing when I paste in into my browser. It could just be my computer, but if one of you would be so kind as to repost these as links, others who might have the same problem could right-click and 'save as'.

Anyway, if you watch closely, you will see as the collapse progresses, much of the upper section disappears before the lower section (below the fire) is covered with smoke. The lower floors seem to be holding up quite well under the initial onslaught. This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own. This might lead one to suggest the I'm Bigger and Tougher than You Theory, as the lower 96 floor section might say to the 14 floor section. I'm just saying the upper section is sure going to get it right from the start, as these videos show.


If I am reading http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm correctly, they are stating that the impact and fires weakened the core support. Given that, the floors below the impact sites would have been able to support less load than prior to the impact. In the last two sections of the report they indicate that the collapse was not a pure top down collapse, but rather the core support failed as a whole.

[bunker]

delphi_ote,

This has been gnawing at me for months, and I think I just realized the fundamental flaw of the non-explosive free fall theory. It assumes that each impacted floor and its 1-floor worth of supports are taking responsibility for each impact alone. But we know that the intact, or largely intact, floor's supports are feeling the impact through all supports all the way to the ground. The falling mass is literally impacting the entire support structure from floor 96 to the foundation.

What are your thoughts?

[bunker]

...but rather the core support failed as a whole.
Certainly they are not suggesting the entire core support structure failed as a result of localized fire and structural damage near the top.

Are they?

[Graham S1]

yes, the enitre core failed all at once. go back to your teevee and stop worrying. :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Certainly they are not suggesting the entire core support structure failed as a result of localized fire and structural damage near the top.

Are they?

* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

* Fire-induced core column shortening detected. Due to heating from fires following the aircraft impacts and subsequent buckling, there was a shortening of core columns seen in both towers on floors at or near the fire-affected impact sites. Shortening of the core columns caused the floor system to pull the perimeter columns inward—the observed inward bowing that was seen minutes prior to the collapse of each tower. Significant thermal sagging of the floor system exacerbated the inward pull on the perimeter columns in WTC 2. Vertical loads carried by shortened columns were redistributed to perimeter columns, putting additional strain on their load-bearing capabilities.

[DavidJames]

yes, the enitre core failed all at once. go back to your teevee and stop worrying. :)Welcome back, now are you going to go back and answer all the questions you've been asked in the thread you started?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54452

[CurtC]

These two videos show the North Tower collapse:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/Shaking%20before%20WTC-1%20collapse.mpg
I've clickablized these links for you.

This seems to support what I will now call my Mutual Assured Destruction Theory. :) That is, for every floor the anvil destroys, it must give up one of its own.I agree with you on this. When the floors at the failure point smash together, they both get equally destroyed. The air is compressed out, and the floor below, and the floor above, impact with the other two floors' rubble compacted between them, and they both fail basically symetrically. Then they get compressed with the others, and the (n-2) and (n+2) floors go through the same process. You can see that happening in your video, so that by the time the top 14 floors have destroyed the 14 floors below the impact site, there is pretty much nothing intact left of the top floors, and then it's just a large mass of rubble falling through the lower floors and wiping them out. And I agree that this kind of process should be somewhat slower than exactly free-fall speed. But because of the large mass of all that rubble, it's not slowed down to a great extent. And in fact, you can see from the video that the building falls somewhat slower than free-fall speed by comparing it to the speed of the ejecta nearby.

[bunker]

* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.

* Fire-induced core column shortening detected. Due to heating from fires following the aircraft impacts and subsequent buckling, there was a shortening of core columns seen in both towers on floors at or near the fire-affected impact sites. Shortening of the core columns caused the floor system to pull the perimeter columns inward—the observed inward bowing that was seen minutes prior to the collapse of each tower. Significant thermal sagging of the floor system exacerbated the inward pull on the perimeter columns in WTC 2. Vertical loads carried by shortened columns were redistributed to perimeter columns, putting additional strain on their load-bearing capabilities.
You'll have to forgive me, sometimes my style of writing makes me seem smarter than I am. Could you explain this like I'm stupid?

To drive my point home, Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine total collapse time. If we are to accept this, we must accept that this energy was being dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire structure all the way to the ground.

[Graham S1]

heres a video that ISN'T in Loose Change.

(put www in front of this)infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm

tell me what is alleges, so I know you watched it. more evidence for consideration.

[bunker]

I've clickablized these links for you.
Thank you so much. :)

[bunker]

To drive my point home, Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine total collapse time. If we are to accept this, we must accept that this energy was being dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire structure all the way to the ground.
Which leads me to another thought, allowing me to get one post closer to posting links: Is Dr. Greening accounting for the energy required to create this seismic data? The energy to simulate a 2.1 magnitude earthquake is being transmitted to the ground. Shouldn't this energy be accounted for in the Dr.'s calculations?

[Graham S1]

Welcome back, now are you going to go back and answer all the questions you've been asked in the thread you started?



theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

anyone watched that Senate video yet?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You'll have to forgive me, sometimes my style of writing makes me seem smarter than I am. Could you explain this like I'm stupid?

To drive my point home, Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine total collapse time. If we are to accept this, we must accept that this energy was being dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire structure all the way to the ground.

If I am interpretting their synopsis correctly, they are saying that the weakening of the core support happened prior to the beginning of the collapse, thus reducing the load capabilities of all the floors and when the collapse began the support began to fail on the floors below the point current collapse prior to the collapse wave (*shrug* I don't know what to call it).

[DavidJames]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

anyone watched that Senate video yet?Fair enough, however, if you're not interested in backing up your claims with evidence or answering questions about them, why come here in the first place?

[brodski]

heres a video that ISN'T in Loose Change.

(put www in front of this)www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm

tell me what is alleges, so I know you watched it. more evidence for consideration.
(link edited for those as lazy as I am)
So the allegations are
1) a company contracted by the Us government has links with the sex trade
2) The pentagon can't manage a computer contract and is generally inefficient and
3) There where some "war games" operations on 9/11.

Can you tell me how this is relevant at all to the topic in any way shape or form.

Even if all the allegations are true all it shows is that
1) The us government deals with some unsavoury people.
2) Large government bodies are hopelessly inefficient at managing IT contracts and
3) There were some military training exercises carried out (as well as a DOJ exercise and a response to some Russian bomber movements) on 9/11.

What do you think this proves?

[aggle-rithm]

We may have to agree to disagree, but this looks like a significant amount of material to me.

Shots of North Tower:

If it were solid, or even a liquid, it would be. But it's just dust.

Have you ever seen a building imploded? I saw a 20+ story brick building brought down when I was about twelve. When it hit the ground, a HUGE dust cloud was kicked up, much bigger than the original building had been. A nearby skyscraper, the tallest building in town at 36 stories, was completely hidden behind it.

Each WTC tower was more than five times larger than this building, and contained much more concrete. It was also not a controlled collapse, so the buildings came apart more chaotically as they went down. I'm not surprised at the size of the dust clouds at all, but I certainly don't think they represented more than a tiny percentage of the buildings' total mass.

[aggle-rithm]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.



Yeah, critical thinking can be a real hassle. It's much easier just to turn your brain off.

[Aepervius]

I dunno if it has already been said or not, but when I see the premise and argument of the CT, It ain't "loose change" which come to mind, but rather "loose screw". sorry.

[delphi_ote]

delphi_ote,

This has been gnawing at me for months, and I think I just realized the fundamental flaw of the non-explosive free fall theory. It assumes that each impacted floor and its 1-floor worth of supports are taking responsibility for each impact alone. But we know that the intact, or largely intact, floor's supports are feeling the impact through all supports all the way to the ground. The falling mass is literally impacting the entire support structure from floor 96 to the foundation.

What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are that you need to work out some of the math and physics yourself. I've done quite a lot of work for you. I don't mind doing this if you want to understand things, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on. You seem to want to invalidate the model without doing any actual research yourself. I can't rush off and work for 20-30 minutes every time you have a question (especially if you want to take these dynamics into account! It would take some serious calculus!) Besides, how can you check my work if you don't understand what I'm doing?

I am not your dancing physics monkey!:monkeyr::mdance:

The physics in the analysis we've been going over were simplified. The author also does not account for wind resistance, the total mass of the debris ejected from the building, the calculus involved in finding the mass disappated into the structure, the lengths of wires in the walls, the number of portable desk fans sitting on cubicle desks, or the temperature and humidity at Ground Zero that day. Literally every single particle in the universe was acting on those buildings! We're dealing with a first order approximation here. It is very accurate. This shows that the author's work most likely accounts for the largest factors involved.

Much more detailed simulations have been done, but they would take both you and me several years of study to fully understand. This study is a simplified version a layman can understand. If you want to go more in depth, read some of the links others have provided in this thread (especially the NIST links,) e-mail genuine experts (structural engineers would be a good place to start,) and start crunching some numbers yourself!

[LordoftheLeftHand]

By George it looks like Plan 9 From Outer Space has finally come to life.

Grave robbers from outer space!



No seriously, a great post.

Imagine the scene:

You are in charge of a multi national, pan-corporate secret cabal. You want to inflict terror on the American population for political purposes (some wacky Hegelian scenario). Why would you choose such a complicated method? Why not just have a couple "black ops agents" (or whatever) release a bunch of nerve gas? With near unlimited resources (which a cabal like though would likely have) I'm sure we could come up with dozens of different scenarios that would involve far less co-conspirators or risk of discovery.

LLH

[Hellbound]

LotLH:

Yep. A few biological agents in subway stations, for example. Bomb a few churches or a schools. Nerve gas in a nunnery. Anthrax on Amtrac. Contaminate a hospital.

IN fact, a MUCH more dangerous plot, that could be done with a small handlful of people easily, would be to release a chemical or bilogical agent into all (or several) of the major hospitals in a large city (or a few cities). Not only have you killed and/or injured many, you've crippled any possible fast medical response by removing the medical resources. And it wouldn't take anything like the number of people required for this proposed 9/11 plot, with much less chance of discovery, and would have been just as horrifying as the 9/11 attacks.

ETA: Or even dirty bombs. With the power the cabal would supposedly have, obtaining some depleted uranium or some old fuel rods wouldn't be that difficult. Imagine 10 hospitals in New York all hit with dirty bombs at the same time.

[Aepervius]

As far as I remmember there is a lot of radio source (cancer treament equipement for example) which need to be recycled at its end of life. Just fake some signature, grease some hands, and hoopla ! You have wonderfull radioactive material which will attract *less* attention than your average kilogram of depleted U or fuel rode, which are very well followed. And you can make *MORE* bombs, or even fill it up in a transport with half fuel, half fertiliezer and a lot fo radioactive material. Make it explode around various hospital.

And do not get me started with the water supply...

[Dave_46]

Folks

I was reading some older posts and came across a reference to a web site by Alek.
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
this contains the following paragraph.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).



Two things come to mind immediately.

1 The steel temperature is quoted at 800-900 C, when in post 601 Alek says

"In other words, look to the fires, for which I've already offered evidence that they should have been no higher than 280C (536F). They offer no scientific analysis of their vastly higher estimates. This is a big problem."

The fires in the Cardington experiments were fuelled by timber, which still managed to heat the steel to a temperature which cut its strength considerably.

2 The construction of the building used for the Cardington experiments was more modern than the WTC towers. It was specifically built to test modern construction techniques. The horizontal beams in this building are more substantial than my understanding of the WTC floor supports. The reason that the Cardington building did not collapse was due to load sharing as the individual components weakened and distorted. The building suffered severe local damage, and access to parts of the building was restricted after the tests due to the damage. To state the obvious, the structural integrity of the building had not been compromised by a severe impact.

I was present for two of the experimental fires on the Cardington building.

Dave

Edited to correct spellling mistooks

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Folks
...
The fires in the Cardington experiments were fuelled by timber, which still managed to heat the steel to a temperature which cut its strength considerably.
...

This is exceptionally important, as Alek claimed that, after the jet fuel burned out, the remaining cellulose based fire would reach an even lower max temp than the jet fuel could.

[delphi_ote]

Not sure if anyone else saw this...
New York has released partial tapes of emergency calls from the World Trade Center on 9/11 for the first time.

Nearly nine hours of calls show the responses of emergency operators to callers amid the chaos of the attacks.

The words of the operators - but not the callers - were released following a lawsuit filed by the New York Times and a group of victims' relatives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4866208.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

[azazal]

Grave robbers from outer space!



No seriously, a great post.

Imagine the scene:

You are in charge of a multi national, pan-corporate secret cabal. You want to inflict terror on the American population for political purposes (some wacky Hegelian scenario). Why would you choose such a complicated method? Why not just have a couple "black ops agents" (or whatever) release a bunch of nerve gas? With near unlimited resources (which a cabal like though would likely have) I'm sure we could come up with dozens of different scenarios that would involve far less co-conspirators or risk of discovery.

LLH


Guess I'm just a simple guy at heart. Instead of nerve gas of other agents, I would have used the resources to purchase truck loads of conventioal explosives and then have said trucks drive into the major population centers of a few cities - NY, DC, Chi, LA. Have them detonate in the middile of rush hour/commuter traffic.

[bunker]

My thoughts are that you need to work out some of the math and physics yourself. I've done quite a lot of work for you. I don't mind doing this if you want to understand things, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on. You seem to want to invalidate the model without doing any actual research yourself. I can't rush off and work for 20-30 minutes every time you have a question (especially if you want to take these dynamics into account! It would take some serious calculus!) Besides, how can you check my work if you don't understand what I'm doing?

I am not your dancing physics monkey!:monkeyr::mdance:

The physics in the analysis we've been going over were simplified. The author also does not account for wind resistance, the total mass of the debris ejected from the building, the calculus involved in finding the mass disappated into the structure, the lengths of wires in the walls, the number of portable desk fans sitting on cubicle desks, or the temperature and humidity at Ground Zero that day. Literally every single particle in the universe was acting on those buildings! We're dealing with a first order approximation here. It is very accurate. This shows that the author's work most likely accounts for the largest factors involved.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. I was genuinely asking your opinion. And I've been addressing my questions to you because you seem like the most intelligent person here.

Dr. Greening's explanation is deficient. All that's left to do is calculate how much energy it takes to cause a 2.x earthquake, and then we will know how much energy he left out of his calculations. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to do that. But I am going to hazard an uneducated guess and call it a $hitload of energy.



After reviewing the paper once more, three things are clear:

1. Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine the approximate collapse times.

2. Dr. Greening assumes the energy of each collapse is being applied to one or two floors.

3. #2 is a huge mistake, because #1 proves the energy was being transmitted to the ground.

So the search for a workable theory explaining the collapse time without explosives continues...

[WildCat]

After reviewing the paper once more, three things are clear:

1. Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine the approximate collapse times.

2. Dr. Greening assumes the energy of each collapse is being applied to one or two floors.

3. #2 is a huge mistake, because #1 proves the energy was being transmitted to the ground.

So the search for a workable theory explaining the collapse time without explosives continues...
Hold on for a minute: You claimed not to understand the math, but yet you're able to find fault in it?

And isn't the final collapse a collision w/ the ground? I really don't see your objection here, nor your expectation of a slow-motion collapse.

[aggle-rithm]

But I am going to hazard an uneducated guess and call it a $hitload of energy.



After reviewing the paper once more, three things are clear:

1. Dr. Greening uses seismic data to determine the approximate collapse times.

2. Dr. Greening assumes the energy of each collapse is being applied to one or two floors.

3. #2 is a huge mistake, because #1 proves the energy was being transmitted to the ground.

So the search for a workable theory explaining the collapse time without explosives continues...


After reveiwing your post, three things are clear:

1. You're not very good at math.
2. You're not very good at reaching rational conclusions even when the math is done for you.
3. No amount of evidence will ever change your mind.

[bunker]

Much more detailed simulations have been done, but they would take both you and me several years of study to fully understand. This study is a simplified version a layman can understand. If you want to go more in depth, read some of the links others have provided in this thread (especially the NIST links,) e-mail genuine experts (structural engineers would be a good place to start,) and start crunching some numbers yourself!
Here is the sum total of NIST's contribution to the free fall problem, which they apparently only included to respond to criticism of the preliminary draft:
9.3.3 Events Following Collapse Initiation

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
So, after hundreds of pages of dissection to explain the collapse initiation, they offer not one number to explain the free fall. Case closed?

[WildCat]

Here is the sum total of NIST's contribution to the free fall problem, which they apparently only included to respond to criticism of the preliminary draft:
It's the Cliff Notes version for the mantally impaired.

So, after hundreds of pages of dissection to explain the collapse initiation, they offer not one number to explain the free fall. Case closed?
:confused:

[bunker]

Hold on for a minute: You claimed not to understand the math, but yet you're able to find fault in it?

And isn't the final collapse a collision w/ the ground? I really don't see your objection here, nor your expectation of a slow-motion collapse.
You need to read the paper. Dr. Greening clearly uses seismic data to determine both the start and the end of each collapse. This proves that the falling mass is, in fact, literally impacting the entire support structure through the foundation, NOT just one floor.

His math is fine as far as I can tell, but he completely ignores the above fact in his calculations. And that is where I find fault.

[bunker]

It's the Cliff Notes version for the mantally impaired.
Sticks and stones...

[bob_kark]

Changed my mind, I'm going to leave it alone.

[WildCat]

You need to read the paper. Dr. Greening clearly uses seismic data to determine both the start and the end of each collapse. This proves that the falling mass is, in fact, literally impacting the entire support structure through the foundation, NOT just one floor.

His math is fine as far as I can tell, but he completely ignores the above fact in his calculations. And that is where I find fault.
It is accounted for (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf):
Having made these adjustments to the timelines of the 911 seismic data we are able to conclude that the small ripples in the traces of the WTC collapse events - ripples that precede the period of large oscillations - represent the first stage of collapse as defined more precisely below. The seismic signal for this first stage is small, as would be expected, since kinetic energy is being transmitted to the ground only through the steel support structure. Furthermore, a significant fraction of this kinetic energy is being absorbed as the energy needed to buckle and crush the structural elements of the buildings. The major seismic signal of each collapse is generated by the ground impact of falling debris, and constitutes what we will call a second stage of collapse. Given the above considerations and a careful evaluation of the seismic data, it is estimated that the first stage of collapse took 11.3 +/- 1.5 seconds for each WTC tower. We will show in the following Section that the second stage of collapse added 1 – 2 seconds to the total collapse times.

[bunker]

This proves that the falling mass is, in fact, literally impacting the entire support structure through the foundation, NOT just one floor.
I should clarify: The existence of the seismic data proves this, not Dr. Greening's use of it.

I'll put it this way, much like every single particle in the universe was acting on those buildings, every single support in the structure was absorbing each impact. Saying a 14 story structure can crush a 96 story structure is like saying one bus can crush seven others stacked on top of each other when dropped from a few meters above.

[bunker]

It is accounted for (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf):
He acknowledges the fact that the energy is being transmitted through the whole building. He doesn't think this should have any effect on the building's ability to withstand the collapsing floors.

[WildCat]

He acknowledges the fact that the energy is being transmitted through the whole building. He doesn't think this should have any effect on the building's ability to withstand the collapsing floors.
Why should it? When a train goes by the ground shakes, I doubt this slows the train down by any significant amount.

[bunker]

Why should it? When a train goes by the ground shakes, I doubt this slows the train down by any significant amount.
Ah yes, but when one train impacts another, it is impacting the entire train, not just one car.

[WildCat]

Ah yes, but when one train impacts another, it is impacting the entire train, not just one car.
You miss the point, the energy transmitted through the columns as vibrations is minimal compared to energy of the floors impacting. Intuition tells me this would be related to the square footage of the supporting columns compared to the square footage of each floor (for example, if the the column was 2'x2' and supported 400 sq. ft. of floor, only 1% of the force would be transmitted through the column), but I could be (and probably am!) waaaay off on that.

I'm not knowledgable in this subject, maybe someone else here can do the math.

[TjW]

We may have to agree to disagree, but this looks like a significant amount of material to me.

Shots of North Tower:

Did you read the appendix, where the calculated distance vs time from the model are compared with observations from multiple camera angles?
It's a very nice match.
The model does not take into account every possible variable, but that level of match pretty much rejects the idea that demo charges would be necessary for the towers to fall that fast.

[delphi_ote]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. I was genuinely asking your opinion.
I'm not upset. I was just trying to be funny. Please don't worry! :)
And I've been addressing my questions to you because you seem like the most intelligent person here.
I appreciate your compliment, but that is certainly not true. I'm just willing to spent a lot of time going back over my freshman college physics (1999... I can't believe it's been over 6 years!) You are capable of the same. All of the homework I'm about to do to answer one of your questions you could've very easily done yourself.

Dr. Greening's explanation is deficient.
As I said before, the analysis is a simplification. It's necessary to simplify. If we factor in too many details, we won't be able to work all the math!

All that's left to do is calculate how much energy it takes to cause a 2.x earthquake, and then we will know how much energy he left out of his calculations. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to do that. But I am going to hazard an uneducated guess and call it a $hitload of energy.
This seems like an interesting thing to try to calculate. According to Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_great_earthquake#Magnitude_examples), we're dealing with roughly 1 metric ton of TNT, which is equal to 4.184 × 10^9 J according to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29). There was certainly enough energy in the collapse to cover that.

On the other hand, if none of the energy was disappated (i.e. if the mass of the two towers fell in free fall) 20^12 J. would have been two kilotons (the energy of a small nuclear weapon!) and registered a 4.0! Clearly that hypothesis is not correct.

So the search for a workable theory explaining the collapse time without explosives continues...
No workable theory explaining the destruction WITH explosives has been presented at all.

[Euromutt]

ETA: Or even dirty bombs. With the power the cabal would supposedly have, obtaining some depleted uranium or some old fuel rods wouldn't be that difficult. Imagine 10 hospitals in New York all hit with dirty bombs at the same time.I doubt DU is radioactive enough for a dirty bomb; it's actually used as a liner to transport more radioactive materials, like strontium, cesium and cobalt. The latter are used for medical applications such as radiotherapy, and the resulting waste might be better suited for dirty bomb-making purposes, as well as being more easy to get hold of without leaving indications of DoE or NRC involvement in the plot.

[rwguinn]

<<<Snip to the important bit>>


No workable theory explaining the destruction WITH explosives has been presented at all.

The "objective analysts" who use seismic data to determine the fall spped have forgotten one big item:
The explosives would have registered on a seismograph. So where are the signatures?
1 stick of dynamite will register. That's how they used to find oil-bearing formations. A geophone in one spot, dynamite a couple of miles or more off. Now, they just drop big weights.

[emperorchaos]

Well, I was away for a few days and missed out a bit. But I read what I had missed on this thread and I also headed over to the Loose Change forum and read what's been going on there. I won't register or post there myself because I don't want the government to know that I know what's really going on (yeah, I think I might make up my own conspiracy theory).

All I know is that this is really getting nowhere. I'm fairly certain that most of us here at JREF would be more than willing to change our minds should someone provide actual evidence of a conspiracy, but as that is not likely to happen and as it looks like nothing will change the mind of Alek or anyone like him, is it all really necessary?

By the way, reading the Loose Change forum, I noticed that I at least agree with Alek on something. That being the ridiculousness of the two party system of the US.

That was a lot of reading to catch up on. My eyes hurt now. Time for something easier. A movie perhaps. I'm going to see "V for Vendetta". Yeah, that's the ticket.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Wow! 21 pages. Thierry Meyssan sure got his money's worth on this one. Want to "fight the man" and disparage government? Easy.

1) Find a catastrophe.
2) Blame it on the government.
3) If you really need to, find or create any little inconsistencies in any thing in any way and call it a conspiracy.
4) Hope people concentrate on the disparagement of government by associating it with the tiny details.
5) Raise and argue the tiny details endlessly.

Expected results:

1) People will distrust government (or at least be suspicious of government).
2) People will believe government officials secretly kill people to avoid distrust of government.
3) People will hate government.
4) People will overthrow government.
5) People will live free.

Come on. There is not even an established alternative theory for the 9/11 attacks. The best that is available is: maybe it wasn't terrorists, maybe was the goernment, but we don't know how or why. This is what Thierry Meyssan promoted.

Before even tiny detail of the "official story" has to be justified, the conspiracy theorists should at least provide a "conspiracy story" that is more probable.

In summary: this is stupid. :)

[Graham S1]

3) There were some military training exercises carried out (as well as a DOJ exercise and a response to some Russian bomber movements) on 9/11.



Is that generally agreed on, on this forum?

[brodski]

Is that generally agreed on, on this forum? well,seeing as it's a matter of public record, I doubt you would find many people disagreeing with it, however what does it show?
That the military engages in training exercises from time to time? How is it relevant at all to the attack on the WTC?
Lots of unusual things where probably going on on the 11th of September 2001, but then lots of unusual things go on every day. Each day is unique, you have to do more than just point to infrequent occurrences which just happened to take place on that particular day in order to prove anything.

[Graham S1]

There is 1 scant, brief mention of one of the games going on on 911, in the Comission Report. Nothing about the others.

what about the one FEMA started on Sept 10th? Good job they were there set up and ready to go eh?

[brodski]

There is 1 scant, brief mention of one of the games going on on 911, in the Comission Report. Nothing about the others.

what about the one FEMA started on Sept 10th? Good job they were there set up and ready to go eh?
what relevance does it have? You need facts, not snide innuendos, to prove your case. Were any of these "war games" going on anywhere near Washington or New York City? and if they where not, why would the 9/11 commission pay much attention to them?

[Complexity]

Is that generally agreed on, on this forum?

:dl:

Is anything generally agreed on in this forum?

[brodski]

:dl:

Is anything generally agreed on in this forum?

I think we all agree that it's Lisa Simpson's fault, and we are united in our loathing of AmyWilson.

[kookbreaker]

Sorry, ignore this for the moment.

[RandFan]

:dl:

Is anything generally agreed on in this forum?Yes, don't you agree?

[Euromutt]

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.This comment and its implcations have been nagging at my mind for the past couple of days, and I need to get some thoughts off my chest, namely this:
If Alek seriously believes it's the government's intention to infect and intern all of us credulous sheep, what measures has he himself taken to avoid sharing our fate? Has he holed himself up in some inhospitable and inaccessible area in the wilds of Idaho or Montana and cut himself off from all communication with the outside world, so that neither the government nor the Infected can find him? Evidently not. Instead, he's on the net with a readily traceable IP address, once the government puts the thumbscrews on his ISP, probably not at any significant distance from a major population center.

I'm reminded of the "Ground Zero Lounge" gathering shown in the P&T:BS! episode on conspiracy theories (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s3/ct). Here's a bunch of people who claim to be convinced that the government is up to all kinds of nefarious activities, and what do they do? They assemble at an organized event, the time (every Monday night at 2000 Pacific time) and place (Dante's at SW 3rd and Burnside in Portland, OR) of which is public knowledge! How do they know the Shadowy Government Agency™ of their choice doesn't have the venue under surveillance, identifying potential troublemakers? Or has a raid team standing by to round the bunch of them up and spirit them off to an ultra-secret detention facility, followed by a quick trip to a mass grave in Nevada? How do they know the whole event hasn't been arranged by the SGA?

The only way this behavior makes sense is if none of these idiots genuinely believe the garbage they spew. They're just mentally masturbating to their own perceived cleverness, and don't really think that any of it is true. Maybe I should pop down to Portland one Monday, attend one of these Lounges, step up to the mic in my best Agent Smith look, and announce that everyone in the joint is being taken into precautionary detention and would they please file into the buses outside in an orderly fashion.

[hellaeon]

I cant believe the CTers goto this much effort.

I cant even get past the amount of people that would need to be involved.
That USA gov cant even conceal a sexual act between two people.

they are like ID'ers who find the gaps and say 'thats why it cant be true!'

Edit: Euromutt - I completely agree and that P&T episode made my jaw drop

[kookbreaker]

If Alek seriously believes it's the government's intention to infect and intern all of us credulous sheep, what measures has he himself taken to avoid sharing our fate? Has he holed himself up in some inhospitable and inaccessible area in the wilds of Idaho or Montana and cut himself off from all communication with the outside world, so that neither the government nor the Infected can find him? Evidently not. Instead, he's on the net with a readily traceable IP address, once the government puts the thumbscrews on his ISP, probably not at any significant distance from a major population center.


They never do. The ones who complain the loudest about the evil oil companies ruling us all never take public trans. or bike to work. They always are the ones who drive one to a car. If you mention it they act as if their location and lack of effort is the oil companies' fault. I've met arch-conservative neo-cons who do more to not burn oil on a daily basis than these folks do. Its easier to complain about imaginary future threats from Bush's oil buddies and their biotech ways (!) than to actually do something about them.

Conspiracy theories are opiates of the self-impressed. They are for people who aren't smart enough in normal fields of study to make a 'name' for themselves so they jump into a world of vauge evidence and imaginary shadow figures and all of a sudden they are special for knowing what the rest of us sheeple don't know. They are suddenly part of a select 'elite' who are in the know that something happened, just don't be too specifics about what happened and you can stay in your fuzzy shadow world.

[RandFan]

Quoted by Sultanist:

Huh? Lets take all the people off of the planes, destroy other planes, then put all the extra people onto one plane and blow it up over land, where the remains of bodies are to be found, then blow up the extra planes over the ocean at night, where the bodies won't be found.

It's tough to come up with a worse plan. It really is.Agreed, and hey, let's blow up WTC 7 while we are at it. Why? It houses Rudi Guiliani's office. Seriously, this is one of the answers I got when I asked why WTC 7 along with offices of the CIA and there was lot's of evidence there. So what if there are offices there? Wouldn't be easier to dispose of evidence just by putting it in an incinerator rather than destroying an entire building?

The pathology of these folks is astounding.

[brodski]

I when I was looking around for a source of LC so I could watch this drivel, i came across his nice little video, it seems there are others out there fighting this nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgjWGVHxW8&search=loose%20change
I like the fact that this shows that a little critical thinking and research can show loose change for the lying propaganda it is.

[kookbreaker]

Agreed, and hey, let's blow up WTC 7 while we are at it. Why? It houses Rudi Guiliani's office. Seriously, this is one of the answers I got when I asked why WTC 7 along with offices of the CIA and there was lot's of evidence there. So what if there are offices there? Wouldn't be easier to dispose of evidence just by putting it in an incinerator rather than destroying an entire building?


Naaah! Let's blow up the building and risk a random clean-up crewman having a chance to find the incriminating stuff.


The pathology of these folks is astounding.

Indeed. The idea that Rudy Guilliani would have any part in such destruction of the city he worked so hard for could only come in the pathetic, slimesucking, wetpants fantasy of a 9/11 CT'er. Do these guys pay attention to anything outside of their little conspiracy theory toys?

[kookbreaker]

I when I was looking around for a source of LC so I could watch this drivel, i came across his nice little video, it seems there are others out there fighting this nonsense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgjWGVHxW8&search=loose%20change
I like the fact that this shows that a little critical thinking and research can show loose change for the lying propaganda it is.

Zing!

Good find brodski. And good for that guy making the film. Of course, he's obviously a gov'ment disinfo agent.

[RandFan]

I don't know what really happend [sic] at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie. :rolleyes: Ignorance on parade.

Yet we don't ban you do we Alek. Free speech is alive and well here. No one is asking you to leave. We don't for one simple reason, we are not threatened by the truth.

I've seen your damn movie. I'm doing my homework. I challenge any of the Loose Brainers to come here and debate the issues. I'd go there to do it but you guys can't handle the heat and you banned me.

One word of caution. While I will follow the rules of this forum and not engage in personal attack I won't be quite as *decorous as I was at loose change.

Oh, and tell any of your friends over there to bring a dictionary because I'm not going to dumb myself down for you guys. This is the only time I'm going to look up a word for you (see below).

* dec·o·rous
adj.
Characterized by or exhibiting decorum; proper: decorous behavior.

de·co·rum (dhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-kôrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifm, -khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif-)
n.

Appropriateness of behavior or conduct; propriety.

[delphi_ote]

Wouldn't be easier to dispose of evidence just by putting it in an incinerator rather than destroying an entire building?
I don't know. It seems to me like those in charge of the conspiracy are just too creative. The power has clearly gone to their heads.

I can picture it now... 5 guys in a dark room smoking cigars. A young man enters and exclaims, "We've got a problem. Tom left some paperwork in WTC7!"
CSM#1: Well, blow it up!
CSM#2: You can't just BLOW IT UP! Honestly, #1...
CSM#1: I'm sorry. You're right. Fly a robot plane into it.
CSM#2: We already did that today!
CSM#3: Fill the building with explosives!
CSM#1: And set it on fire!
CSM#2: We did that, too!
CSM#4: I've got it! An invisible robot missile plane shaped like a guitar!
CSM#3: Brilliant!
CSM#2: That should keep the "truth seekers" busy...

[RandFan]

Check out this thread, Was The Date Chosen To Polarize Us?
(http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1599)
Riiiight, they actually picked 9/11 because they thought it would polarize people.... :rolleyes: huh?

My response which seemed to get people angry.

Bush: Well we need a date.
Cheney: How about 9/11?
Bush: Why 9/11?
Cheney: Think about it,.... oh wait, never mind. 9/11 is the number for emergency.
Bush: I don't get it.
Cheney: It will enrage and polarize people even more.
Bush: So you are saying that doing this on 9/11 will have more of an effect than 9/12
Cheney: You bechya. This was not appreciated.

Loose Brains, no thinking required.

[delphi_ote]

I'll see what they think of my take on the date. It's scary how easy this stuff is...

[RandFan]

I'll see what they think of my take on the date. It's scary how easy this stuff is...:)

Did you see my post about the coincidences between Lincoln and JFK? It's two posts above yours.

Alek

9/11 has occult numerological significance. Consider the towers themselves resembled an 11, they each had 110 stories. They each had 47 (4+7) steel columns. The WTC 7 building had 47 floors. Flight 11 struck the north tower.

The towers were not unlike the pillars Jachin and Boaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jachin_and_Boaz) found on the porch of Solomon's temple, and found within every Masonic temple.

The Pentagon groundbreaking ceremony was held on September 11th, 1941, 60 years before 9/11.

Of course, this is just symbolism, none of it can be proven. :rolleyes:

woo-woo

And no one there challenges this $h!t. What the hell does the symbolism have to do with anything? Come on folks. HeeeelllloooooOOOO.........

Woo #1: Oh look, there is conincidential symolism.
Woo #2: What does it mean?
Woo #1: I don't know.
Woo #2: Why is it there?
Woo #1: I don't know.
Woo #2: Then what's the point?
Woo #1: Point? I have no point!

[delphi_ote]

:)

Did you see my post about the coincidences between Lincoln and JFK? It's two posts above yours.

:rolleyes:

woo-woo

And no one there challenges this $h!t. What the hell does the symbolism have to do with anything? Come on folks. HeeeelllloooooOOOO.........

Woo #1: Oh look, there is conincidential symolism.
Woo #2: What does it mean?
Woo #1: I don't know.
Woo #2: Why is it there?
Woo #1: I don't know.
Woo #2: Then what's the point?
Woo #1: Point? I have no point!
That they don't understand the point is only further evidence of the depth and complexity of the evil plot.

[RandFan]

That they don't understand the point is only further evidence of the depth and complexity of the evil plot.:D

Them thar consperters 'r awfly wiley and wascawly.

[Manny]

Yet we don't ban you do we Alek. Free speech is alive and well here. No one is asking you to leave. We don't for one simple reason, we are not threatened by the truth.Heh. Alek will be unable to respond to this paragraph until Thursday (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54490).

[RandFan]

Heh. Alek will be unable to respond to this paragraph until Thursday (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54490). We just might ban him if he continues to break explicit rules. I'm not for suspending and banning. I've argued against it in the past.

Still, JREF gives warning and suspends first. I was banned with no warning and no suspension.

To be honest there was a warning but it wasn't explicit and I was never told specifically what it was I was doing wrong.

[delphi_ote]

I was never told specifically what it was I was doing wrong.
Imposing too much on the BS session.

[brodski]

I was never told specifically what it was I was doing wrong.
You where furthering the Conspiracy by being a government apologist, personally doing your bit to usher in the NWO so keenly awaited by the Globalists.
Why do you love the UN more than our own freedom? :p

[RandFan]

You where furthering the Conspiracy by being a government apologist, personally doing your bit to usher in the NWO so keenly awaited by the Globalists.
Why do you love the UN more than our own freedom? :p:D

Brother John Birch would not aprove.

[delphi_ote]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1664
Count down to my being banned...

[Pyrrho]

Analysis of the Pentagon attack:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Compare to the opposite opinion:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

[RandFan]

In doing my research I've run across some good websites. I'm planning on putting together a compilation of links but in the meantime check out the following.

"Loose Change" An analysis (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html)

9/11: Debunking The Myths
(http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)
I don't doubt that these have been posted before. That's why it would be good to have a compilation. If you have some post them again and I will compile them and make them available.

[delphi_ote]

In doing my research I've run across some good websites. I'm planning on putting together a compilation of links but in the meantime check out the following.

"Loose Change" An analysis (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html)

9/11: Debunking The Myths
(http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)
I don't doubt that these have been posted before. That's why it would be good to have a compilation. If you have some post them again and I will compile them and make them available.
Pretty much everything here (http://911myths.com/) and here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

ETA
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

[RandFan]

Analysis of the Pentagon attack:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html Good link.

[RandFan]

Pretty much everything here (http://911myths.com/) and here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/) :D

Damn, took the wind out of my sails, on the other hand why reinvent the wheel?

Something tells me I'm going to have to chill out a bit and not put more emotion or effort into this than it is worth which isn't much. Still, I'm enjoying it at the moment.

Thanks delphi,

Appropriate NIC BTW.

[RandFan]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1664
Count down to my being banned... Your first response says I was guilty of pretending to be "innocently naive".

I told them exactly what I knew and exactly what my intentions were. I was sincere.

[delphi_ote]

Your first response says I was guilty of pretending to be "innocently naive".

I told them exactly what I knew and exactly what my intentions were. I was sincere.
If I don't get a response from the admins, I will PM them. Do you know which one banned you, or should I just send it to all of them?

As to the links, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder. I was just trying to give you more for your list! Those are just the links I remember previously mentioned in the thread.

[delphi_ote]

Something tells me I'm going to have to chill out a bit and not put more emotion or effort into this than it is worth which isn't much. Still, I'm enjoying it at the moment.
Thanks for bringing that emotion and effort. My experience has been very much the same. I think this is something that should get us emotional. Thanks for doing your part to help quell this rising tide of nonsense.

[ysabella]

Conspiracy theories are opiates of the self-impressed.
That has a nice ring to it. Well said!

[RandFan]

I've been all day on this. My thanks to delphi, pyrrho and of course of course Google.

Amazing, simply amazing, there is a mountain of rebuttal evidence. Good logical and reasonable. Odd how the CT's "do their homework" but limit the homework to faith promoting sites.

[pipelineaudio]

they have a chatroom

server is imperialconflict.com

/j #LC911

[Jon the Geek]

Amazing, simply amazing, there is a mountain of rebuttal evidence. Good logical and reasonable. Odd how the CT's "do their homework" but limit the homework to faith promoting sites.
Once you buy into a conspiracy theory like the 9/11 theories, evidence becomes irrelevant. Anything that supports the "official story" is planted. Anything that supports what you believe is true. Anything that sounds too silly for however far you've fallen into the theory must be planted by the conspirators to make the conspiracy theory look bad.

It's depressing to think about.

[RandFan]

they have a chatroom

server is imperialconflict.com

/j #LC911Hey Pipe,

I just caught your latest posts at Loose Change. That was where I was trying to go and failed misserably. So now I'm jaded. Anyway, you're doing a good job.

[Sultanist]

A couple of days ago I was laughing about the "9-11 Truth Movement".
But now after finishing a couple of days of posting to and reading that forum, I no longer find much humor in this.
I knew this thing was getting out of control. But I never imagined the extent of it.

[Gravy]

A couple of days ago I was laughing about the "9-11 Truth Movement".
But now after finishing a couple of days of posting to and reading that forum, I no longer find much humor in this.
I knew this thing was getting out of control. But I never imagined the extent of it.

I'm right with you, Sultanist. I wasn't aware of 95% of this CT stuff until a couple of weeks ago when I joined this forum. It simply doesn't enter my daily life...and I live in New York City and am a tour guide who's given hundreds of tours at Ground Zero. I have never heard a New Yorker espouse one of these crackpot theories. As an experiment I tried talking sense to one of the worst of the CTists on the Loose Change site, but got nowhere, of course.

Tonight I wrote a long piece about this issue from a New Yorker's perspective. Sat in a coffeehouse and wrote it longhand, which felt good. But now I don't have the energy to type it up and post it. Maybe tomorrow. The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I wasn't aware of 95% of this CT stuff until a couple of weeks ago when I joined this forum. It simply doesn't enter my daily life...and I live in New York City and am a tour guide who's given hundreds of tours at Ground Zero. I have never heard a New Yorker espouse one of these crackpot theories...That's because all New Yorkers "live in a haze of psychogenic gasses." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1546200&highlight=psychogenic+gasses#post1546200)

[RandFan]

A good link I found that I"m adding to the list is Truth or Fiction (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/pentagoncrash.htm).

[Gravy]

Just wanted to say thanks to delphi and Rand for all your work on this. The Loosers should hire you to teach seminars in critical thinking...they might get somewhere then.:D

[Gravy]

That's because all New Yorkers "live in a haze of psychogenic gasses." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1546200&highlight=psychogenic+gasses#post1546200)

Priceless! And that theory definitely captures the spirit of New York better than any other. There's been a mysterious "maple syrup smell" going around every now and then, and no one knows where it's coming from. When it's around and the wind is right it covers huge parts of the city. I finally have an explanation.

[pipelineaudio]

A good link I found that I"m adding to the list is Truth or Fiction (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/pentagoncrash.htm).

That site is awesome! The Iraq links are priceless

[Gravy]

Now I can upload an avatar.

[pipelineaudio]

Hey Pipe,

I just caught your latest posts at Loose Change. That was where I was trying to go and failed misserably. So now I'm jaded. Anyway, you're doing a good job.

Thanks.

Strangley they keep banishing me and then unbanishing me from the under the bridge

There seems to be a trend there: Ask you a question about somnething you have no idea about, possibly no interest in, then attack you till you hazard a guess, then jump on you for your answer

curiouser and curiouser

[Belz...]

They never do. The ones who complain the loudest about the evil oil companies ruling us all never take public trans. or bike to work. They always are the ones who drive one to a car. If you mention it they act as if their location and lack of effort is the oil companies' fault. I've met arch-conservative neo-cons who do more to not burn oil on a daily basis than these folks do. Its easier to complain about imaginary future threats from Bush's oil buddies and their biotech ways (!) than to actually do something about them.

Conspiracy theories are opiates of the self-impressed. They are for people who aren't smart enough in normal fields of study to make a 'name' for themselves so they jump into a world of vauge evidence and imaginary shadow figures and all of a sudden they are special for knowing what the rest of us sheeple don't know. They are suddenly part of a select 'elite' who are in the know that something happened, just don't be too specifics about what happened and you can stay in your fuzzy shadow world.

:clap:

[Belz...]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

anyone watched that Senate video yet?

Why should WE make that effort, then ?

[brodski]

Why should WE make that effort, then ?
well it's only a few minuest long, but it's only relivence is taht it mentions some "war games" exercises carried out on 9/11. Graham S1 hasn't told me why I should care about those yet.

[Hellbound]

I doubt DU is radioactive enough for a dirty bomb; it's actually used as a liner to transport more radioactive materials, like strontium, cesium and cobalt. The latter are used for medical applications such as radiotherapy, and the resulting waste might be better suited for dirty bomb-making purposes, as well as being more easy to get hold of without leaving indications of DoE or NRC involvement in the plot.

Yeah, DU isn't very radioactive, but can be highly deadly as a dust or powder. I was trying to keep things short, and unfortunately sacrificed accuracy :)

Thanks for the clarification. And your points about the relative ease of obtaining medical radioactives just goes further to support the point...9/11 as a plan would have to be one of the most poorly concieved ideas in history...somewhere along the lines of Custer's "Let's just charge 'em!"

:D

[RandFan]

If I don't get a response from the admins, I will PM them. Do you know which one banned you, or should I just send it to all of them?

As to the links, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder. I was just trying to give you more for your list! Those are just the links I remember previously mentioned in the thread. Thanks delpi, I appreciate it. It was TheQuest (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showuser=10).

[WildCat]

Well, now Roxdog from the LC forum is over at another forum (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php) challenging people to come on his "radio show". Funny, he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come over here and argue his nonsense. What a tool... and a complete coward.

[Pardalis]

Hello, I’m new to this forum and this is my first post. I am a francophone so please be indulgent.

I’m from the province of Québec and the anti-american sentiment here is overwelming. Needless to say the Loose Change «film» is very popular. I’ve been trying for 5 years to answer to those gullible people without success. They just stick to their impressions and loose interpretations of the 9/11 facts (see the Alek member of this thread, typical). That’s how I found this thread and I must say, even though I haven’t completed reading it all, I’m delighted!

I’m an illustrator so I’m by no means a scientist and have absolutely no expertise in structural engeneering or psychology, but here is my take on all of this. (I’m sorry if it as already been said in this thread, but I was anxious of telling it):

People tend to tie up loose ends, to link coincidences together in order to make the world make sense. Maybe that’s why Loose Change is so poplular. It’s a common human weakness. We cannot think that the world is a result of luck and chance, it has to be a result of purpose. Like religion. People believe Loose Change because they have faith. But faith in what? They believe the American governement and the «globalists» want to take over the world. Anything else is false. But like any religion, that can’t be proven. How conveniant. I think faith is a feeling, and feeling is unreliable. There is alot of things to worry about the globalisation of the economy, and the bush Administration has alot to answer for (the recent phone tappings for example). But the CT must take a step back and be objective. they also need to consider that coincideces do happen. I’m not a professional skeptic but shouldn’t the occurence of chance be incorporated to any investigation? Coincidences are everywhere, at evey seconds. We just don’t see them until an event makes us look (like 9/11). That’s all. Of course some of the discrepencies seem odd and suspicious, but that’s true with everything in life when you let your feelings guide your mind. It is strange that the WTC7 collapsed, and that it had CIA offices makes for a big coincidence. But then again, there aren’t big coincidences. We may never know why WTC7 collapsed, it just did. And it's not a 20 year old amateur filmmaker who is going to convince me that there's a conspiracy.

Back to reading the thread, I’m taking notes.:D

[Manny]

Well, now Roxdog from the LC forum is over at another forum (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php) challenging people to come on his "radio show". Funny, he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come over here and argue his nonsense. What a tool... and a complete coward.The official site for the movie "Flight 93" has a whole forum for "alternate theories?" Wonder if they do that for their other non-fiction movies?

[chipmunk stew]

Hello, I’m new to this forum and this is my first post. I am a francophone so please be indulgent.

I’m from the province of Québec and the anti-american sentiment here is overwelming. Needless to say the Loose Change «film» is very popular. I’ve been trying for 5 years to answer to those gullible people without success. They just stick to their impressions and loose interpretations of the 9/11 facts (see the Alek member of this thread, typical). That’s how I found this thread and I must say, even though I haven’t completed reading it all, I’m delighted!

I’m an illustrator so I’m by no means a scientist and have absolutely no expertise in structural engeneering or psychology, but here is my yake on all of this. (I’m sorry if it as already been said in this thread, but I was anxious of telling it):

People tend to tie up loose ends, to link coincidences together in order to make the world make sense. Maybe that’s why Loose Change is so poplular. It’s a common human weakness. We cannot think that the world is a result of luck and chance, it has to be a result of purpose. Like religion. People believe Loose Change because they have faith. But faith in what? They believe the American governement and the «globalists» want to take over the world. Anything else is false. But like any religion, that can’t be proven. How conveniant. I think faith is a feeling, and feeling is unreliable. There is alot of things to worry about the globalisation of the economy, and the bush Administration has alot to answer for (the recent phone tappings for example). But the CT must take a step back and be objective. they also need to consider that coincideces do happen. I’m not a professional skeptic but shouldn’t the occurence of chance be incorporated to any investigation? Coincidences are everywhere, at evey seconds. We just don’t see them until an event makes us look (like 9/11). That’s all. Of course some of the discrepencies seem odd and suspicious, but that’s true with everything in life when you let your feelings guide your mind. It is strange that the WTC7 collapsed, and that it had CIA offices makes for a big coincidence. But then again, there aren’t big coincidences. We may never know why WTC7 collapsed, it just did. And it's not a 20 year old amateur filmmaker who is going to convince me that there's a conspiracy.

Back to reading the thread, I’m taking notes.:DWelcome to the forum, Pardalis. You may not be a professional skeptic, but judging from your first post, you're a natural one. Thanks for joining the conversation.

[RandFan]

Why should WE make that effort, then ? I know, this kills me. They demand you do your "research" or do your "homework" as they chant over and over. But they'll be damned if they will do any homework that contradicts their precious world view.

Thing is, I was watching their damn video when they pulled the plug. I was about two thirds of the way in when I was given the boot. I was honestly doing as they had asked. And it wasn't impossible for me to change my mind. If the evidence is there I'm on their side. Period!

I don't assume that I'm right and then find the evidence to support my belief. However before this incident I had read the PM article and Randi's points and others and was leaning strongly against.

They wanted me to look and I was willing. Not good enough for them though.

What's funny is Alek states my noise to substance ratio was high. Hell, that is all that is there is noise. And I stuck to logic. Many of the people with whom I was dealing with were largely engaging in rhetoric. To be honest, many if not most of the people I came into contact with there don't even understand what constitutes logically valid argument.

[WildCat]

The official site for the movie "Flight 93" has a whole forum for "alternate theories?" Wonder if they do that for their other non-fiction movies?
Why not? Maybe make another movie about that too.

[CurtC]

People tend to tie up loose ends, to link coincidences together in order to make the world make sense. Maybe that’s why Loose Change is so poplular. It’s a common human weakness. We cannot think that the world is a result of luck and chance, it has to be a result of purpose.Welcome Pardalis. I think you hit on part of the appeal of conspiracy theories, but another part is that these people are desperate to be in the select group that is "in the know" about these events. They watched the video, found themselves believing it, and really enjoyed the narcotic feeling of knowing information that others are not supposed to know. Now this desire to contiune that overrides any balanced inquiry.

[Belz...]

Hello, I’m new to this forum and this is my first post. I am a francophone so please be indulgent.

Bienvenue sur le forum, alors!

I’m from the province of Québec and the anti-american sentiment here is overwelming.

Where, specifically ? Here in Saguenay people don't seem to bother with that too much, but maybe my circle of friends is relatively limited. Not that they necessarily agree with american politics.

People tend to tie up loose ends, to link coincidences together in order to make the world make sense.

It's my observation that filling up the blanks in our knowledge by ANY means necessary seems to be a very powerful survival trait that we have a HARD time getting rid of.

They believe the American governement and the «globalists» want to take over the world.

Everybody wants to take over the world. Nothing new there ! ;)

Nice post, man.

[Belz...]

Welcome Pardalis. I think you hit on part of the appeal of conspiracy theories, but another part is that these people are desperate to be in the select group that is "in the know" about these events.

Yes, beign social animals, I suppose this is ANOTHER survival trait.

[kookbreaker]

Well, now Roxdog from the LC forum is over at another forum (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php) challenging people to come on his "radio show". Funny, he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come over here and argue his nonsense. What a tool... and a complete coward.

He is still probably whining about the registration process. In the meantime, we've had at least two well spoken new folks join the forum and put their first posts in this thread.

Does his radio show even come up to 'podcast' level?

[Pardalis]

Thanks for the warm welcome!


Where, specifically ? Here in Saguenay people don't seem to bother with that too much.


Sorry about that, I have the Montréal habbit of thinking Montréal speeks for all of Québec. I'm glad to hear Sagnéens are not gullible, but also worried that Saguenay is the 4th level of hell. lol

[RandFan]

Thanks for the warm welcome!



Sorry about that, I have the Montréal habbit of thinking Montréal speeks for all of Québec. I'm glad to here Sagnéens are not gullible, but also worried that Saguenay is the 4th level of hell. lolI'm sorry Paradalis, I didn't realize you were from Canada. We don't ban people so you are free to stay but understand we are by necessity forced to take a dim view of your opinions.

Oh hell, I'm two days late.

Welcome.

[RandFan]

Welcome Pardalis. I think you hit on part of the appeal of conspiracy theories, but another part is that these people are desperate to be in the select group that is "in the know" about these events. They watched the video, found themselves believing it, and really enjoyed the narcotic feeling of knowing information that others are not supposed to know. Now this desire to contiune that overrides any balanced inquiry.Yeah, and then there is the surreal "movie" mentality.

In the movies OJ Simpson would have escaped in that famous Bronco chase and found the real killers.

Life isn't a movie. Real life can be exciting with lots of subterfuge, conspiracy, excitement and drama however most events even the exciting ones have prosaic answers. Things aren't always as they appear. Often enough they are. It's our job to see the world in a critical light and figure out which is which. Hey, if our government murdered innocent Americans then I want the guilty parties brought to justice. I would spend a good deal of my time seeing to it.

I've yet to see the evidence to convince me of that.

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry Paradalis, I didn't realize you were from Canada. We don't ban people so you are free to stay but understand we are by necessity forced to take a dim view of your opinions.

Oh hell, I'm two days late.

Welcome.
LOL

I think I'm way too American for my fellow Québecers, that's probably why they can't understand I don't believe Loose Change.

[Pardalis]

I think you hit on part of the appeal of conspiracy theories.

I think that's the same appeal for Philip K. Dick novels. I'm a PKD fan though, so why can't I believe the 9-11 conspiracy? Oh, yeah, I can make the difference between a good book and reality.

[conspiracybeliever]

Well, now Roxdog from the LC forum is over at another forum challenging people to come on his "radio show". Funny, he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come over here and argue his nonsense. What a tool... and a complete coward.
Sooo, he challenges you to go on his show, you refuse, and that makes HIM the coward? How do you figure?

[kookbreaker]

Sooo, he challenges you to go on his show, you refuse, and that makes HIM the coward? How do you figure?

Real simple: It is his show. He controls the content, as well as the resulting edited output. There is no indication that this would be anything but a hostile host and a hostile audience. Were he so bold, he would seek a more neutral ground for proper debate. But he doesn't want that. He doesn't want a level playing field. He wants to set an ambush, pure and simple.

[conspiracybeliever]

Real simple: It is his show. He controls the content, as well as the resulting edited output. There is no indication that this would be anything but a hostile host and a hostile audience. Were he so bold, he would seek a more neutral ground for proper debate. But he doesn't want that. He doesn't want a level playing field. He wants to set an ambush, pure and simple.
How do you edit when you are live? It seems to me that if someone believes in their heart that they have the facts they shouldn't be scared of a simple debate. It is easy to hide in the forums. It is much more difficult to face questions head on where you won't be able to skirt them or change the subject easily.

[kookbreaker]

How do you edit when you are live?


Tell that one to Howard Stern. Just how 'live' is his show anyway? Not as live as you might think.


It seems to me that if someone believes in their heart that they have the facts they shouldn't be scared of a simple debate.


A simple debate does not involve a hostile environment


It is easy to hide in the forums.


Its even easier to hide on friendly forums and ban everyone who mightdisagree with your opinions.


It is much more difficult to face questions head on where you won't be able to skirt them or change the subject easily.

Then why is he so determined that it happen under his control?

[conspiracybeliever]

He has stated he would go on your show if you had one. Or anyone else's for that matter. You are merely assuming he'd be hostile to you on his show only to give a reason not to go on it, IMO.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't think any one person on the JREF forums is claiming to be an expert at debunking 9/11 CTs, though RandFan may be getting close. What we have tried to do with those believers that have posted here is have meaningful discussion about their ideas, and those discussions have been of varying value. It would be unwise from a debating standpoint to enter into a non-neutral environment and debate a subject with someone who has devoted significant amounts of time in building up their position without having researched your opponents position and expected arguments first.

If he is geniune in his call for debate then the venue should be a little concern to him.

Additionally, though some JREF posters have made their way over to the Loose Change forums there has been no invitation from them, to us, to do so. Whereas the JREF mods have gone out of their way to make the invitation to the Loose Change members. This hardly fosters a feeling of willingness to discuss the issues in a fair and open manner.

[delphi_ote]

Yeah, and then there is the surreal "movie" mentality.
So why is it they always want this movie to be directed by Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay?

[Manny]

What's the distribution of this show? How many downloads, what are the demographics, etc?

Also, is he an 861er or is that someone else on the podcast network?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

He has stated he would go on your show if you had one. Or anyone else's for that matter. You are merely assuming he'd be hostile to you on his show only to give a reason not to go on it, IMO.

Why is _his_ podcast the only acceptable venue for this discussion to occur?

[delphi_ote]

He has stated he would go on your show if you had one. Or anyone else's for that matter. You are merely assuming he'd be hostile to you on his show only to give a reason not to go on it, IMO.
Would anyone be able to check facts on a radio show? No. Would anyone be able to do research on a radio show? No. Would a calm voice of reason be heard over irrational rhetoric on a radio show? No.

I know you guys aren't interested in those things, but the rest of us are. What is the point of going on a radio show when the discussion here seems to be working out just fine?

[conspiracybeliever]

Why is _his_ podcast the only acceptable venue for this discussion to occur?
It's merely a proposal. It appears he is willing to go on anyone's show to debate the actual issues. It seems that if someone went on his show and he made things unfair or acted like a jerk it would only reflect badly on him so, what's the big deal?

[kookbreaker]

He has stated he would go on your show if you had one. Or anyone else's for that matter. You are merely assuming he'd be hostile to you on his show only to give a reason not to go on it, IMO.

Forgive me for not being 100% up on the RoxDog posturing. I really have not been paying attention to the LC forum, despite what you may think. Here is what he has said that I am aware of:

"I PUBLICLY CHALLENGE ANYONE OF THESE PEOPLE TO COME ON MY SHOW OR SUBMIT THEIR OWN SHOW TO REVERE RADIO NETWORK DETAILING HOW THEY ARE CORRECT AND WE ARE INCORRECT. "

Its pretty much seems to be all on his network. If he's said otherwise I am unaware of it (not that it didn't happen, I am merely unaware of it). Mostly, however, I am seeing a distinct lack of effort on his part to stress a neutral playing field.

And yes, hostile hosting is a very good reason to avoid going on a show. Even Art Bell knows when and how to provide a level playing field. Roxdog has failed to demonstrate that he has such an ability.

[kookbreaker]

It's merely a proposal. It appears he is willing to go on anyone's show to debate the actual issues. It seems that if someone went on his show and he made things unfair or acted like a jerk it would only reflect badly on him so, what's the big deal?

You really think so? Several members of LC acted like complete jerks to JREF members who went over to that forum and all I could see was cheerleading from the LC rank and file. I see little reason any shennanigans perpetuated by Roxdog would 'reflect badly on him' to his core audience.

[conspiracybeliever]

So, in other words, no one has the courage to meet his challenge? Interesting seeing how he has laid all his cards on the table...

[conspiracybeliever]

I see little reason any shennanigans perpetuated by Roxdog would 'reflect badly on him' to his core audience.
Who cares about his audience? If you guys have the facts and research that should matter very little.

[kookbreaker]

So, in other words, no one has the courage to meet his challenge? Interesting seeing how he has laid all his cards on the table...

He laid all his cards on the table while hidden in the basement of his house. Such posturing may impress you, it does not impress me.

[kookbreaker]

.
Who cares about his audience? If you guys have the facts and research that should matter very little.

You're not familiar with debates, are you?

Have you ever heard of a man named Duane Gish?

[conspiracybeliever]

Actually, if you listen to his shows he as done much more than that. I can't believe no one here will go on his show. He would go on yours...:p

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually, if you listen to his shows he as done much more than that. I can't believe no one here will go on his show. He would go on yours...:p

Do you have a point or are you just here to goad people with posturing and thinly veiled ad hom attacks? People have voiced their concerns with the idea of going on his podcast; and given the reception dissenters have received on his forums I think their concerns are valid. He is more than welcome to come here and, provided he abides by the enumerated forum rules, voice his ideas without fear of reprisal by the mods.

[delphi_ote]

Actually, if you listen to his shows he as done much more than that. I can't believe no one here will go on his show. He would go on yours...:p
You never addressed what the point of doing a radio show is.

[Pardalis]

does the «War of the Worlds» radio show remind anyone of anything?

[Regnad Kcin]

...I’m from the province of Québec and the anti-american sentiment here is overwelming. Needless to say the Loose Change «film» is very popular...I've visited Montreal (for the Grand Prix) and found it to be a thoroughly charming city, with no shortage of warm and engaging citizens. So it's a bit distressing to hear you say your countrymen are overwhelmingly anti-American. C'est la vie, I suppose.

In any event, welcome to the forum.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've visited Montreal (for the Grand Prix) and found it to be a thoroughly charming city, with no shortage of warm and engaging citizens. So it's a bit distressing to hear you say your countrymen are overwhelmingly anti-American. C'est la vie, I suppose.

In any event, welcome to the forum.

Not entirely unlike hearing this morning (on NPR) that Pres. Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has been promoting an very militaristic, anti-American agenda as of late.

Ed: to correct name

[conspiracybeliever]

You never addressed what the point of doing a radio show is.
Hum, I find that something to be somewhat self-evident. :o

[conspiracybeliever]

Do you have a point or are you just here to goad people with posturing and thinly veiled ad hom attacks? People have voiced their concerns with the idea of going on his podcast; and given the reception dissenters have received on his forums I think their concerns are valid. He is more than welcome to come here and, provided he abides by the enumerated forum rules, voice his ideas without fear of reprisal by the mods.
I just think it's funny. You even have people here saying it's a good idea yet no one will accept the challenge.

[Gr8wight]

I'm sorry Paradalis, I didn't realize you were from Canada. We don't ban people so you are free to stay but understand we are by necessity forced to take a dim view of your opinions.


Because he or she is from Canada? Like, say...

...James Randi?

[Pardalis]

I've visited Montreal (for the Grand Prix) and found it to be a thoroughly charming city, with no shortage of warm and engaging citizens. So it's a bit distressing to hear you say your countrymen are overwhelmingly anti-American. C'est la vie, I suppose.

I might have generalised a bit.

In any event, welcome to the forum.

Thanks:D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I just think it's funny. You even have people here saying it's a good idea yet no one will accept the challenge.

So, can I then interpret your answer to my question as being, "No."?

[bob_kark]

You never addressed what the point of doing a radio show is.

I have to agree. Your group has provided no credible evidence of any kind to support any of the claims you have made. None. Anyone who dissents from public opinion on your forms is dismissed without cause. I haven't seen a single poster from your forums, other than the ones you choose to ban, that has any interest in the truth. It seems your forum's main concern is sensationalistic speculation which allows you to remain in your fairy tale world. So, what difference would it make to simply ignore credible information on an audio format rather than a written format? Are you better at comprehending information audibly rather than visually?

[DavidJames]

So, in other words, no one has the courage to meet his challenge? Interesting seeing how he has laid all his cards on the table...Here's the deal. Radio/TV is great medium for emotional presentation of information. It's not such a good place for logical, reasoned debate. On "the air", people can say whatever they want and there is no way to check any facts presented. This leads to claims and counter claims and ultimately leaves the listeners with nothing on which to understand what to believe. Further, one debater can make multiple and often convoluted claims which can overwhelm the other debater who may not understand the claims and/or not be able to respond to all of them. This format favors those who can talk the fastest, the loudest and with the most persuasive tone. Other then pure entertainment, I see no value in such a "debate".

Using a forum like this allows discrete claims with the opportunity to provide sources. Reponses can then address specific claims including comments on the source for the claim and provide specific rebuttals again with sources. Of course, simply because it's possible, doesn't mean it's done. But at least the potential exists, which doesn't on a TV/Radio program.

Those in the LC forums have had the opportunity to lay their cards on the table and as has been shown, have an empty hand. They can offer no credible sources to refute the official data and even less to support their opposing theories.

[kookbreaker]

I just think it's funny. You even have people here saying it's a good idea yet no one will accept the challenge.

The one person who said it was a good idea said he should be looking for a neutral ground to have the show on. Right now, it does not seem that Roxdog is interested in doing that beyond lip service. Given his behavior ont he forums, there is little to be gained beyond abuse.

This is pretty much empty posturing by you and Roxdog. Just because someone makes a challenge does not mean it is worthwhile to accept it. After all, the 'Dr Dino challenge' is held out (allegedly) to all skeptics, but none will be accepting it. With good reason.

You fail to understand the difference between chestbeating and legitimate challenges.

[conspiracybeliever]

Chestbeating: Mere Buzzword.

Roxdog would school anyone here on ANY live show. Period. :)

[delphi_ote]

Hum, I find that something to be somewhat self-evident. :o
I find it "self-evident" that you are being deliberately obstinant and opaque. Answer the question. What is the purpose of taking this debate to a radio show?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Chestbeating: Mere Buzzword.

Roxdog would school anyone here on ANY live show. Period. :)

The veracity of that claim aside; even if Roxdog would "school anyone here on ANY live show" that factors neither to the (in)validity of his claims nor the (in)validity of his opponents counter-claims. Thus showing more reason that a live, non-neutral environment, debate would not be profitable.

[chipmunk stew]

I just think it's funny. You even have people here saying it's a good idea yet no one will accept the challenge.I fully admit it--I don't have the balls. I even said so to Roxdog (although I called him a f:)k-wad in the same sentence).

Truth is, I'm not a good speaker, and live audiences and microphones make me very nervous.

Posting to a forum, though, is not "hiding" any more than a radio show is. It doesn't mean I lack confidence in my position. The fact is, I'm willing to bet these forums get a lot more traffic than his show, and the posts made often contain references that can quickly be checked at the click of a button, making them much more educational than a radio show.

His radio show sounds like a pissing contest where the winner is determined by who gets in the best digs and who comes across as more confident, rather than by whose information and perspective is most convincing.

[delphi_ote]

After the way you've silenced dissent (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1664) on your forum, why would anyone want to go on your radio show?

[Belz...]

.Who cares about his audience? If you guys have the facts and research that should matter very little.

Why bother debating anything if the audience doesn't matter ?

Actually, if you listen to his shows he as done much more than that. I can't believe no one here will go on his show. He would go on yours...:p

Easy for him to say, since there is no show for him to go to.

[delphi_ote]

And by the by, Roxdog never gave any information about the radio show. He provided a link, but I have no way of knowing who his sponsors are, where the show is broadcast, how long I'd be on the show, if I'd have to travel to be on the show, how the show is broadcast... etc. etc. etc. etc.

He's throwing it out there as a vague threat. If he were serious and professional, he would have provided this information.

ETA And "Come on my radio show so I can kick your ass!" isn't much of an invitation...

[chipmunk stew]

After the way you've silenced dissent (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1664) on your forum, why would anyone want to go on your radio show?Here's another fun example:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1701

[conspiracybeliever]

And by the by, Roxdog never gave any information about the radio show. He provided a link, but I have no way of knowing who his sponsors are, where the show is broadcast, how long I'd be on the show, if I'd have to travel to be on the show, how the show is broadcast... etc. etc. etc. etc.

He's throwing it out there as a vague threat. If he were serious and professional, he would have provided this information.

ETA And "Come on my radio show so I can kick your ass!" isn't much of an invitation...
Don't have sponsers. All you need is a phone. If you challenged me I wouldn't think twice. :)

[delphi_ote]

Don't have sponsers. All you need is a phone. If you challenged me I wouldn't think twice. :)
Once again, what is the purpose of taking this debate to a radio show?

And what about my other questions about the show? Does his show even have a website? That might be a good place to start.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Once again, what is the purpose of taking this debate to a radio show?

And what about my other questions about the show? Does his show even have a website? That might be a good place to start.

Will there be an agreement prior to the show as to what topics will be covered or what topics will be off-limits? Will there be guarantees of equal time to rebutt claims? etc

[delphi_ote]

Will there be an agreement prior to the show as to what topics will be covered or what topics will be off-limits? Will there be guarantees of equal time to rebutt claims? etc
Or will Roxdog just yell profanity and name call like he does on your forums?

Kiss my [edited to comply with rule 8 on this forum], delphi_ote.

[Regnad Kcin]

Here's the deal...Extremely well put.

[delphi_ote]

If you want an idea of our "hosts" behavior, I suggest this thread:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130&st=330

[Regnad Kcin]

I find it "self-evident" that you conspiracybeliever] are being deliberately obstinant and opaque. Answer the question. What is the purpose of taking this debate to a radio show?I'll take a shot at answering:

The purpose of the invitation to debate on a radio show is to attempt to use a lure so transparent (yet ostensibly genuine) as to ensure the invitation is declined, so as to further the larger goal of bleating that the so-called skeptics at the JREF won't debate because they are "afraid" to, therefore hoping to insinuate theirs is a clear case of legitimacy.

How'd I do, Loose Changers?

[DavidJames]

If you want an idea of our "hosts" behavior, I suggest this thread:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130&st=330From that link, this is priceless.
delphi_ote,

On the radio, it's a lot harder to skirt issues. Plus, the audience gets to hear you stutter when you are confronted with info you can't addess without a desperate google search... emphasis mine. Exactly, they are afraid to deal with evidence.

[pipelineaudio]

[QUOTE=Regnad Kcin;1547403]I've visited Montreal (for the Grand Prix) and found it to be a thoroughly charming city, with no shortage of warm and engaging citizens. So it's a bit distressing to hear you say your countrymen are overwhelmingly anti-American. C'est la vie, I suppose.
QUOTE]

what rock have you been hiding under ? :)

Having to work with musicians everyday, you get a quick taste for what the artsy fartsy's of other lands feel. Anti american/Anti jew is RABID. Any conspiracy theory is fine, as long as it attacks america or "the joooooos"

then again, just like here in the USA, the artsy fartsy's may not be representative of the population at large

[DavidJames]

then again, just like here in the USA, the artsy fartsy's may not be representative of the population at largeJust like your anecdote may not represent reality.

[CurtC]

conspriacybeliever, someone asked earlier whether you had ever heard of Duane Gish, and I was thinking along the same lines. He's a nutty creationist/anti-evolutionist who can talk a blue streak about his topic. Actually, I have not heard or seen Duane in action, but I have heard his likeness Kent Hovind. Kent can spew out complete BS so fast, that it would take five hours to rebut what he says in each five minutes.

Not because it's true - with a little research he's obviously bat-scat crazy, but because he speaks confidently and quickly, he's very frustrating to debate. And he's been doing this so long, that if you attempt to pursue one line of inquiry in enough detail to show how he's nuts, he can quickly change to another front about which his opponent does not have immediate expertise.

There's just nothing good that comes out of debating someone like that. You need time to gather facts, and a written format so that it can stay on a topic. We've never heard your radio show (link?), but I sure suspect that you are equivalent to Duane or Kent.

[Pardalis]

This whole «Loose Change» thing reminds me of someone finding a small mole on their body, then looking up medical books or browsing the internet for some diagnosis and coming up with «I got cancer!».

In all cases, go see a doctor.

[Pardalis]

Once again, what is the purpose of taking this debate to a radio show?

And what about my other questions about the show? Does his show even have a website? That might be a good place to start.

I guess it's easier to scare people with video and radio than with lengthy drab texts with words and sentences you actually have to read through.

[WildCat]

Sooo, he challenges you to go on his show, you refuse, and that makes HIM the coward? How do you figure?
It's already been stated why a "radio" show is not a good forum for such a debate. A forum such as this one - where all ideas are welcome and there is no chance of being banned because of your position (unlike the Loose Change forum where dissent is not allowed). Just tell Roxdog to get his sorry rear end over here if he is so confident in his position. But it's obvious that the nutters on the LC forum are not interested in honest debate, facts, logic, or reason or they would not be so quick to ban dissenting opinions. Or make all who don't toe the line post in a special troll section like LC does.

Put up or shut up.

[DavidJames]

It's already been stated why a "radio" show is not a good forum for such a debate. A forum such as this one - where all ideas are welcome and there is no chance of being banned because of your position (unlike the Loose Change forum where dissent is not allowed). Just tell Roxdog to get his sorry rear end over here if he is so confident in his position. But it's obvious that the nutters on the LC forum are not interested in honest debate, facts, logic, or reason or they would not be so quick to ban dissenting opinions. Or make all who don't toe the line post in a special troll section like LC does.

Put up or shut up.On average i get as many as 50 live listeners and a few hundred downloads. :DEmphasis mine, perhaps conspiracybeliever is roxdog

[WildCat]

Emphasis mine, perhaps conspiracybeliever is roxdog
I think you're right! And he's getting his butt kicked over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54747).

[chipmunk stew]

Emphasis mine, perhaps conspiracybeliever is roxdogIt most definitely is.

From this thread: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1479

[Pardalis]

Sorry to digress from the radio show duel, but here is somthing that really bugs me from the Loose Change «film».

In the rather science fiction part that concerns flight 93, Avery (who suddenly has a degree in psychology) seems to disbelieve that anyone would call their mother and tell their full name: «when was the last time you called your mom and stated your full name?»

Well, M. Avery, I never called my mum from an highjacked airplained, having seen people get their throats cut and knowing that the plane is about to crash into a building (they all had herd of the WTC). But I did see people in extreme situations, like a fire or an accident, say the dumbest things. You never know what adrenaline and stress can make you do or say. You'd have to be a trained CIA agent to keep your cool in such a situation.

If Dylan Avery can make such an arbitrary statement, doesn't that make the rest a little doubtfull?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Emphasis mine, perhaps conspiracybeliever is roxdog

Looks like someone might be confused about who they are...

Sooo, he challenges you to go on his show, you refuse, and that makes HIM the coward? How do you figure?

He has stated he would go on your show if you had one. Or anyone else's for that matter. You are merely assuming he'd be hostile to you on his show only to give a reason not to go on it, IMO.

It's merely a proposal. It appears he is willing to go on anyone's show to debate the actual issues. It seems that if someone went on his show and he made things unfair or acted like a jerk it would only reflect badly on him so, what's the big deal?

So, in other words, no one has the courage to meet his challenge? Interesting seeing how he has laid all his cards on the table...

Who cares about his audience? If you guys have the facts and research that should matter very little.

Actually, if you listen to his shows he as done much more than that. I can't believe no one here will go on his show. He would go on yours...

On average i get as many as 50 live listeners and a few hundred downloads.

Got an email from someone willing to come on my show. A female, no less. Looks like not all of you are cowards. Tomorrow night. 8PM Central...

[senorpogo]

It's already been stated why a "radio" show is not a good forum for such a debate.

It's a pet peeve of mine how often people toss the word "debate" around. Granted, it's usually appropriate in most of the contexts where it's used, but (as a guy who did some formal debating) it kind of bothers me when people use "debate" to suggest that a screaming, petty argument is in way a formal, objectively weighed discussion.

Why don't these Loosers just call it what it is and just use "argument"?

[RandFan]

It's a pet peeve of mine how often people toss the word "debate" around. Granted, it's usually appropriate in most of the contexts where it's used, but (as a guy who did some formal debating) it kind of bothers me when people use "debate" to suggest that a screaming, petty argument is in way a formal, objectively weighed discussion.

Why don't these Loosers just call it what it is and just use "argument"?It's not that either I'm afraid.

We have Monty Python to thank for a good demonstration (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html) of what is not argument and why.

An argument is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition".

The folks at LC engage in fallacy, rhetoric and gainsaying (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gainsaying). Most of it is NOT argument. I attempted to explain it to them but I was accused of using big words and then figuratively burned at the steak.

Ignorance breeds ignorance.

[delphi_ote]

We have Monty Python to thank for a good demonstration (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html) of what is not argument and why.
No we don't!

[RayG]

Chestbeating: Mere Buzzword.

Roxdog would school anyone here on ANY live show. Period. :)

Yet he tucks his tail between his legs instead of coming here to debate. Most curious.

RayG

[RayG]

Why don't these Loosers just call it what it is and just use "argument"?

You're giving them far too much credit. I think 'hissy-fit' is more appropriate.

RayG

[RandFan]

No we don't!:D

A word of warning to JREF folk. Bear in mind that some of the more bucolic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bucolic) Loose Changers are unfamiliar with our esoteric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=esoteric) language, you know, words like proposition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proposition) and premise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise). These things just confuse and frighten them. I'm not making this up. Twice I was criticized for using "big words" during my sojourn (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sojourn) there.

Never mind they are on the Internet with a plethora (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plethora) of reference material.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

:D

A word of warning to JREF folk. Bear in mind that some of the more bucolic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bucolic) Loose Changers are unfamiliar with our esoteric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=esoteric) language, you know, words like proposition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proposition) and premise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise). These things just confuse and frighten them. I'm not making this up. Twice I was criticized for using "big words" during my sojourn (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sojourn) there.

Never mind they are on the Internet with a plethora (http://forums.randi.org/plethora) of reference material.

El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

[RandFan]

El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?

:dl:

[Regnad Kcin]

My little buttercup
Has the sweetest...

[RayG]

...you know, words like proposition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proposition) and premise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise).

I swear officer, I wasn't propositioning that curvaceous lady near her premises, I was just engaging in idle banter. She has an interesting theory about 9/11. :D

RayG

[pipelineaudio]

Just like your anecdote may not represent reality.

then again it may

[delphi_ote]

:D

A word of warning to JREF folk. Bear in mind that some of the more bucolic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bucolic) Loose Changers are unfamiliar with our esoteric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=esoteric) language, you know, words like proposition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proposition) and premise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise). These things just confuse and frighten them. I'm not making this up. Twice I was criticized for using "big words" during my sojourn (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sojourn) there.

Never mind they are on the Internet with a plethora (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plethora) of reference material.

Your grandiloquent loquacity is meretricious and vexatious!

[RandFan]

Your grandiloquent loquacity is meretricious and vexatious! Thank you, I don't mean to boast but I'm not only a cunning linguist, I'm also a master debater.

[valis]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child, unlike some of you I don't spend all day on the net.

anyone watched that Senate video yet?

I went to the link but to borrow a line from the Phil Hendrie show:
I would rather poke my eye out with a stick from a tree than install real player on my computer.

Little hint though: Ms. McKinney is generally considered a nut.

[valis]

Well, now Roxdog from the LC forum is over at another forum (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php) challenging people to come on his "radio show". Funny, he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come over here and argue his nonsense. What a tool... and a complete coward.

His radio show sounds interesting. Is there a link of affiliates avaliable or should I just check my local stations ?

[brodski]

:D

A word of warning to JREF folk. Bear in mind that some of the more bucolic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bucolic) Loose Changers are unfamiliar with our esoteric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=esoteric) language, you know, words like proposition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=proposition) and premise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=premise). These things just confuse and frighten them. I'm not making this up. Twice I was criticized for using &quot;big words&quot; during my sojourn (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sojourn) there.

Never mind they are on the Internet with a plethora (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plethora) of reference material.
I don't know what they are complaining about, your vocabulary is comprised of perfectly cromulent words.

[valis]

I don't know what they are complaining about, your vocabulary is comprised of perfectly cromulent words.

Yes even the smallest of us may feel embiggened by expanding our vocabulary.

[LW]

Your grandiloquent loquacity is meretricious and vexatious!

Eschew obscurity!

[Z]

Eschew obscurity!

That's funny... I was always taught to 'eschew obfuscation'.

[DavidJames]

That's funny... I was always taught to 'eschew obfuscation'.I prefer unsalted eschews

[Sultanist]

Even if the dude who invented the World Trade Center had guaranteed us it could never be taken out by airplane, aren't we forgetting something?
Didn't the dude who invented this thing guarantee us it could never be taken out by an iceberg?

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/mpj/Titanic.jpg

[RandFan]

Even if the dude who invented the World Trade Center had guaranteed us it could never be taken out by airplane, aren't we forgetting something?And bear in mind the 767 hadn't even been built yet. It's true that the 747 was designed at about the same time as the WTC but the design did not take into account any 747 specs.

[Dr Adequate]

theres a hell of a lot of questions to answer. it would be pointless. It would generate hundreds more from that probably. I work, and have a wife, a life, and a child... So your excuse is that you're just too darn busy to find out if what you're saying is true.

But you're not too busy to keep on saying it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Happy b-day Dr. A!

[Pardalis]

So your excuse is that you're just too darn busy to find out if what you're saying is true.

But you're not too busy to keep on saying it.

That's the problem. A claim can be made so easily.

[Alek]

It was requested you start a new thread on that, not continue here. DO you read english?



Uh, the fact that I don't take orders doesn't have anything to do with my ability to read english.



How about addressing the points made since that?



Lets make it official, shall we?

DO NOT put an image back after it has been removed by a mod.

This is kind of fun, like tennis!

We've been through this already. I was already warned. Let the image stand, or ban me.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Congrats on breaking the forum rules again. At least you'll get to play martyr.

:busted

[Manny]

And another lying terrorist supporter commits suicide by mod rather than answer challenges. Quel surprise.

[chipmunk stew]

Uh, the fact that I don't take orders doesn't have anything to do with my ability to read english.




Lets make it official, shall we?The martyr ban tactic.

[Alek]

The martyr ban tactic.

If the mods leave my image link alone, I won't have to edit or repost it, and I won't get banned. I'm not trying to get banned, but I'm not going submit to petty censoring, especially when I'm being provoked by multiple people at the same time, and nothing is done about that.

Lets face it. This forum just isn't that important to me. If I get banned, I'll just take my cause to people who are reasonable and willing to listen.

And you lot will go back to your ghost stories.

[The_Fire]

Alek, ignorance doesn't put you above the rules......And stupidity don't exempt you from punishment. If this is how you behave in real life as well, then I predict several stays behind swedish curtains........

[Nyarlathotep]

If the mods leave my image link alone, I won't have to edit or repost it, and I won't get banned.


Ooooh, I like your logic. I just got a speeding ticket the other day. I'll just go into the courtroom and say "If the cops wouldn't point radar guns at me, I wouldn't be speeding".

I can't lose.

[Lisa Simpson]

He got his wish.

[Joe Random]

... but I'm not going submit to petty censoring, especially when I'm being provoked by multiple people at the same time, and nothing is done about that.



Rather ironic, considering RandFan's treatment at the Loose Screws message board recently.

edit to clarify : meaning it's odd seeing a CTer protest having to abide by the relatively lax JREF forum rules when the CT board apparently bans you for no reason other than failure to lockstep with their take on things.

[Timothy]

Even conspiracy theorists decry "Loose Change"

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

An interesting viewpoint presented in this essay by a CT who believes that the events of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy, and that World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled explosions, but...

...that all of the material presented in "Loose Change" is either intentional deception or blind incompetance.

"if it is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such."

Some valuable point-by-point refutations, and a few examples of where Dylan Avery says one thing, and then factually contradicts what he just said a few seconds later.

- Timothy

[hellaeon]

man alek, when will you just wake up....

I cant believe this jargon has continued for so long.

I never believed the conspiracy (from first hand exp, this is the one that made me look at the time I spent criticallyon any conspiracy) but this whole months episode has shown me just how much of a cult this kind of belief is. Pretty much the same stories, the same misquotes, same, same, same. When its shown to be complete nonsense it is some strange way to confirm the belief to those that choose it.
Coming back to it years later, the same old rubbish. Like listening to duran duran on repeat. Total rubbish.

I cant believe its come down to stuff like freefall and the physics behind it.
I mean, are you kidding? Missles? Nasa controlled planes? Demolitions?
What the hell is the paranoia??? Man, these guys should go live in Places like Zimbabwe where the government is evil and does kill their civilians.

[chipmunk stew]

If the mods leave my image link alone, I won't have to edit or repost it, and I won't get banned.
"If the mods don't enforce their clearly stated rules like they do for everyone else, then I won't have to break them again, and I won't get banned"

I'm not trying to get banned, but I'm not going submit to petty censoring, especially when I'm being provoked by multiple people at the same time, and nothing is done about that.
"I'm trying to get banned, so I'm intentionally breaking your clearly stated rules so that I can get a martyr ban rather than deal with all these people who disagree with me."

Lets face it. This forum just isn't that important to me. If I get banned, I'll just take my cause to people who are reasonable and willing to listen.
"I hope you ban me so I can get back to my monothought cult and tell them how you banned me."

And you lot will go back to your ghost stories.
"And I hope you don't follow me and continue to call me on my BS."


(translation courtesy of Banned Martyrs, Inc.)

[Lisa Simpson]

Has he started whining in his monothought forum yet? I'm curious, yet I don't want to go look for myself.

[delphi_ote]

I take a break to do my research and Alek goes and gets himself banned. Roxdog seems to have run away.

I guess this means I'm going to have to wade back into the mire of the Loose Change forum once I get everything done.

:eusa_wall:

[Regnad Kcin]

Alek, on the chance you're reading this, a question:

What is it like to be 100% wrong on something? I mean, not just a little bit wrong and therefore partially right. Wrong...all the way home. What's that like, I wonder?

Be well, and keep in touch!

Yer pal,

RK

[WildCat]

This little smilie pretty much sums up the paranoid conspiracy nut: http://www.southsiders.net/style_emoticons/default/moe.gif

[RandFan]

If the mods leave my image link alone, I won't have to edit or repost it, and I won't get banned. I'm not trying to get banned, but I'm not going submit to petty censoring, especially when I'm being provoked by multiple people at the same time, and nothing is done about that.

Lets face it. This forum just isn't that important to me. If I get banned, I'll just take my cause to people who are reasonable and willing to listen.

And you lot will go back to your ghost stories.That is such BS. You have been told specifically what the rules are. You either abide by them or not. I am more than willing to follow rules at Loose Change, why are you not willing to follow them here. Over there they have deleted threads, move threads to under the bridge and ban people without ever explaining what rule was broken. You on the other hand are given specific rules and you refuse to follow them. :confused:

[delphi_ote]

You guys like my new title, btw? :D

[RandFan]

You guys like my new title, btw? :DYes!

[kookbreaker]

If the mods leave my image link alone, I won't have to edit or repost it, and I won't get banned.

Awwww, how cute. He thinks he's special.

[WildCat]

You guys like my new title, btw? :D
:D

Damn, I'm jealous!

[Pardalis]

And you lot will go back to your ghost stories.

Look who's talking. Who is chasing after improbable conspiracies from vague and ellusive organisations like the so-called «Globalist», Illuminati or whatever you want to call them?

[Regnad Kcin]

This little smilie pretty much sums up the paranoid conspiracy nut: http://www.southsiders.net/style_emoticons/default/moe.gifI like it! Forum software won't allow me to use it (creating, instead, a link), but I still like it.

[Belz...]

And another lying terrorist supporter commits suicide by mod rather than answer challenges. Quel surprise.

That's "Quelle", by the way.

[Belz...]

You guys like my new title, btw? :D

Yes you evil, evil man.

[a_unique_person]

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change

Why "Loose Change"? I can't even bear the thought of looking at the video to find out why it is called that.

[WildCat]

Why "Loose Change"? I can't even bear the thought of looking at the video to find out why it is called that.
The psy-ops branch of the NWO Globalists tricked them into calling it that, so they can be forever be referred to as "loosers". :cool:

[NoZed Avenger]

This forum just isn't that important to me.



What a staggering coincidence.