PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change


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

richardm
7th April 2006, 07:38 AM
Why "Loose Change"? I can't even bear the thought of looking at the video to find out why it is called that.

Is it a reference to how much it cost to make?

bob_kark
7th April 2006, 08:36 AM
You guys like my new title, btw? :D

If that's what master wishes.

CurtC
7th April 2006, 08:54 AM
This forum just isn't that important to me.What a staggering coincidence.I've done some thinking/analysis on what makes things humorous, and your post here nails it. Economy of language, well-chosen words, and letting the reader make the final connection himself. Well done!

delphi_ote
7th April 2006, 09:12 AM
If that's what master wishes.
43, in order to continue our coverup of 9/11, it's critical that you immediately infiltrate the residence at this address:

8924 Roxbery Avenue
Alafax, Virginia 17432

and replace Phyllis McKinney's dentures with a set that is slightly too large. While you are there, be sure you steal one of her socks from the drier.

When you are finished, report to the ANWR dressed as a polar bear and await further instructions.

brodski
7th April 2006, 09:39 AM
43, in order to continue our coverup of 9/11, it's critical that you immediately infiltrate the residence at this address:

8924 Roxbery Avenue
Alafax, Virginia 17432

and replace Phyllis McKinney's dentures with a set that is slightly too large. While you are there, be sure you steal one of her socks from the drier.

When you are finished, report to the ANWR dressed as a polar bear and await further instructions.
(my bolding)
I knew it!
You know if you had posted this on the "loose change" forum, it would have been taken as conclusive proof that "bird flu" is a plot by the GLOBALISTS.
Min you, on that forum they seem to think that every time they lose a sock doing laundry, its the GLOBALISTS.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1555313#post1555313

chipmunk stew
7th April 2006, 10:10 AM
Has he started whining in his monothought forum yet? I'm curious, yet I don't want to go look for myself.He refers to "JREF" or "JREFers" about a dozen times on this page:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=60

bob_kark
7th April 2006, 11:03 AM
43, in order to continue our coverup of 9/11, it's critical that you immediately infiltrate the residence at this address:

8924 Roxbery Avenue
Alafax, Virginia 17432

and replace Phyllis McKinney's dentures with a set that is slightly too large. While you are there, be sure you steal one of her socks from the drier.

When you are finished, report to the ANWR dressed as a polar bear and await further instructions.

Mission accomplished! I also took the liberty of picking up master's dry cleaning. 43 out.

LordoftheLeftHand
7th April 2006, 11:08 AM
Mission accomplished! I also took the liberty of picking up master's dry cleaning. 43 out.

If I become a henchman can I get my jumpsuit tailored? Can I get metal teeth?

LLH

bob_kark
7th April 2006, 11:22 AM
If I become a henchman can I get my jumpsuit tailored? Can I get metal teeth?

LLH

Jumpsuit tailored, yes. Metal teeth, you have to earn. Its a lot of hard, dangerous, secretive work. You'd be surprised how many times I had to wash master's car, pick up master's dry cleaning, make coffee, etc... just to get a metal incisor. 43 out.

farrisjs
7th April 2006, 12:15 PM
Maybe delphi is the great "Globalist", has more post then me,can write better then me and be more charmining. I work for the FEDERAL GOV and can keep you out of the our Concentration Camps.



Note:
I know I'm not that funny, just trying to get my post count up so I can get a avatar.

delphi_ote
7th April 2006, 01:07 PM
I work for the FEDERAL GOV and can keep you out of the our Concentration Camps.
Psssh. Federal government! We've had control of those guys since 1776. Why do you think Washington complained so much about the size of his wooden teeth?

delphi_ote
7th April 2006, 01:12 PM
Mission accomplished! I also took the liberty of picking up master's dry cleaning. 43 out.
I hope you remembered to ask them to go easy on the starch this time. Well done, 43. You may spend the rest of the day making props for "Loose Change 3."

farrisjs
7th April 2006, 02:10 PM
On a serious note:

I have read most of this thread and have visited the LC2 forum and I don't see any way you can debate with these people. My brother-in-law is really into this stuff and is even premiering his own movie this weekend in NYC. I have debated him on some of his other woo beliefs with some success but this one thier just does seems to be any rational ground I can stand on. He is completely convinced of his CT that what every evidence or argrument I make he comes back with someother CT evidence (what about WTC7, Madrid Hotel fire, the film from the gas station across from the Pentagon,etc....). Most of the time now I try hard to change the subject. I'am not sure why these CT beliefs bother me so much more then any of the other woo belief but they do.

Nyarlathotep
7th April 2006, 02:19 PM
I'am not sure why these CT beliefs bother me so much more then any of the other woo belief but they do.

I don't know about you, but I can tell you why they bother me. Because terrorists killed thousands of innocent people that day. And the CT'ers want us to be chasing phantoms instead of the jagoffs responsible for those deaths. THAT offends me deeply. The CT'ers could be squatting on the graves of the dead and taking big steaming dumps and it wouldn't be nearly as offensive.

farrisjs
7th April 2006, 02:22 PM
I agree it takes us away from the real focus of making our world a safer and better place to live.

WildCat
7th April 2006, 02:25 PM
I don't know about you, but I can tell you why they bother me. Because terrorists killed thousands of innocent people that day. And the CT'ers want us to be chasing phantoms instead of the jagoffs responsible for those deaths. THAT offends me deeply. The CT'ers could be squatting on the graves of the dead and taking big steaming dumps and it wouldn't be nearly as offensive.
Well said.

On a positive note, is it just me or does it seem that most posts on the Looser forum are now down to a few hard-core fruitcakes? Maybe many of the others have come to their senses...

farrisjs
7th April 2006, 02:36 PM
I noticed that too and that most of thier threads are short except when someone from here is debating them.

chipmunk stew
7th April 2006, 02:36 PM
Excellent post by Gravy over at Loose Change:
Alek, for whatever reason, you and Zor completely missed my point about the Loiseaux letter. CDers, including Zor, and now Roxdog, have been using the Loiseaux name to support their claims. They like to mention that Controlled Demolition, Inc. is the best in the business. From what I read, that seems correct.
But the Loiseaux family and CDI categorically state that the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is "ludicrous," and whether or not the quote that was attributed to them is real, they categorically state that no one at CDi ever said anything like it. The best in the business say your theory is hogwash.
Should I not take that seriously? Should I, like Zor and Roxdog, now imply that CDI may be CONSPIRATORS? Here's what Zor said:
The odd thing with CD though is the fact that they cleaned up the OKC bombing site.I find the fact that they cleaned up BOTH sites highly dubious.
WHAT? IN HIS PREVIOUS POST HE SAID THEY WERE THE BEST! HOW LOUD WOULD CDers BE SCREAMING IF THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS WAS NOT ASKED TO DO THIS WORK? Who would you prefer? Third best? How about the investigators? We can't have anyone who's investigated other major incidents: that would be highly dubious. This is wild, wild stuff.
Once you start down this road, there's potentially no end to it. There's a word for that way of thinking: paranoia.
The second Loiseaux reference in the last few posts comes from Roxdog. He linked to a Google search results page that implies that Mark Loiseaux said he saw molten steel in the basements at the WTC. Roxdog made a snide comment that I ask "Bobby Boy" (Sultanist) to forward the link to Mark Loiseaux. Once again, Roxdog proves to be ill-informed.
Here's what Mark Loiseaux actually said
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. –Mark Loiseaux
Now, Roxdog was responding to my comment to Zor that steel didn't have to melt in order for a damaged building to collapse: it had to weaken and expand, which steel does at a much lower temperature. Of course I wasn't talking about the basements, but about where the collapses began. Roxdog tried to change the subject and take it to the basement, literally.
Well, let's go there for a second. Yes, there was molten metal in the basements. Peter Tully, one of the other cleanup contractors,said "molten steel" Others said "molten metal." As far as I know, that metal was never tested. Does anyone know different? One thing I do know, from firsthand experience, is that there was lots of molten aluminum at the site. I've held great cooled blobs of it in my hand. The entire facades of 1 & 2 were aluminum, not to mention the aircraft and interior studwork. I don't know how much aluminum was in #7. Aluminum melts at about half the temperature that steel does. Satellite data indicate hotspots near the surface at around 700c – hot enough to melt aluminum. Could it have been molten aluminum in the basement, mixed with carbonized material? That seems perfectly possible to me. It's important to keep in mind that when we see "red hot" steel, that's not "molten," it's at about 650-800 c, and when it glows orange at around 980c. At around 1500-1600c most steel becomes molten (turns liquid) and appears white.
I think you're like most people from JREF. You're interested in the "truth" as long as it proves your case, strokes your ego, and confirms your worldview. The same goes for Sultanist.
Evidence, please? This is the second time I've asked you for specifics.
I hate to break it to you Alek, but I don't give a fig what you think about me. It doesn't make me feel good that you're frustrated, but I'm here to discuss 9/11, not to hold your hand. I think it's silly to call people names, but if it floats your boat I can't stop you. But you're not going to go far with your claims if they can't stand up to criticism. And ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. I shouldn't have to remind you that you lost your cool at JREF and deliberately violated the rules twice and said "go ahead, ban me." If you didn't like how some people were dealing with you there, then be a man and ask them to stop so that you can continue the discussion in a civil manner.
If I haven't made it clear by now, when we're talking about 9/11, passionate opinions don't impress me. Evidence does. Facts do. Crirical thinking does. Again, for the umpteenth time: beliefs parading as facts don't cut it with me. And why you presume to know anything about my "worldview" is beyond me. You say I'm "interested in the truth as far as it proves my case." If that's true, then why am I here on this forum? I could be over at JREF where it's all cozy, right? Likewise, do you think I enjoyed my hours with the absurd Steven E. Jones? I did not. But a CDer passionately said that 15 minutes of Jones's video would change our minds, so I took that seriouslyAlek, in coming here I went out of my way to get opinions that do not agree with my beliefs. Here are the first two sentences of this thread:
Does anyone know of a good resource that attempts to explain in detail how CD at the WTC might have been carried out? CD isn't a theory I ascribe to, but I'd like to get more info. I've been searching the web but haven't found much that's relevant. (I should have written "subscribe," not "ascribe.")
I wasn't asking anyone to bust their brains, just to point me in the right direction. I assumed that someone would be able to do that. When the posts started to stray off topic I kept listing my questions so people knew exactly what I was looking for.
How was the CD work accomplished?
How did it go – and remain – unseen?
How did it survive?
It's over 800 views and 95 posts later, and no one has provided a theory or a link to a resource that might lead to a plausible explanation. Does that concern anyone here?
Imagine that you're prosecuting the biggest murder case in American history. You KNOW that the crime was committed by members of a certain group. You know it so bad it hurts. You've known it for 4 1/2 years.
There are just a few tiny details you don't know:
– Who anyone is who was involved in any way
– How the plan might have been carried out
– How the vast number of people involved remained unseen and not a word leaked out
– How no trace of equipment or explosives was ever found
– How the work could have survived direct impact from 500 mph airliners and subsequent fire that was hot enough to melt aluminum
– What the motive was
– Why the perps would have added a complicated airline hijack-crash scenario to a perfectly good building demolition.
– Why the buildings weren't blown while fully occupied
– What the explosives, wiring, and/or radio detonators looked like
– How every investigator, public and private, can be in on the coverup
– Why every expert report says you're wrong
– Why the world's leading controlled demolitons experts call your theory "ludicrous"
– Why your leading scientific expert is your worst enemy ("Entropy is, 'Things topple over'.")
– Why of all people, Charlie Sheen had to publicly champion your cause
– On what day Oliver Stone's movie will be released, and if Charlie Sheen or Kevin Costner will play you
I ask you, Mr. prosecutor, have you made your case to the jury?
p.s. Thank you to whomever removed those flapjack photos. Real classy, kids. Please keep in mind that real people died on 9/11, and real people struggle with that loss every day. It's not a video game.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=18&t=1765&p=3130547

farrisjs
7th April 2006, 02:47 PM
Way to go Gravy and you too chipmunk for your past post at LC.

Sultanist
7th April 2006, 03:02 PM
I noticed that too and that most of thier threads are short except when someone from here is debating them.
The "RoxDog" person just replied to me with this... :D

Can we PLEASE ban this f&cking ***** talking piece of filfth?

NobbyNobbs
7th April 2006, 03:24 PM
I have (finally) read through this whole thread (yes, all of it), and all I can say is...

wow.

I didn't realize there were really people out there like this. I thought my father-in-law was an isolated case (he hasn't mentioned WTC to me, but he's all about UFOs, remote viewing, Art Bell, and government cover-ups).

Here's my question: being new here, this is the first time I've witnessed "suicide by mod". Does it happen often? Have you noticed a breaking point at which the poster finally gives? Why would they commit suicide rather than stay and try to convince others of their "truth"?

delphi_ote
7th April 2006, 03:32 PM
Here's my question: being new here, this is the first time I've witnessed "suicide by mod". Does it happen often?
Yes. It's a pretty standard internet forum debate "tactic."
Have you noticed a breaking point at which the poster finally gives?
Usually, the argument comes full circle a few times and the poster about to melt down becomes progressively more rude each time around.
Why would they commit suicide rather than stay and try to convince others of their "truth"?
Because they're cowards. They're too afraid to debate the issue honestly, and they're too afraid to admit that fact. It's a tactical retreat for morons.

delphi_ote
7th April 2006, 03:35 PM
The "RoxDog" person just replied to me with this... :D
Yea. I'm sure his radio show is great. :rolleyes:

Pardalis
7th April 2006, 03:35 PM
On a serious note:

I have read most of this thread and have visited the LC2 forum and I don't see any way you can debate with these people. My brother-in-law is really into this stuff and is even premiering his own movie this weekend in NYC. I have debated him on some of his other woo beliefs with some success but this one thier just does seems to be any rational ground I can stand on. He is completely convinced of his CT that what every evidence or argrument I make he comes back with someother CT evidence (what about WTC7, Madrid Hotel fire, the film from the gas station across from the Pentagon,etc....). Most of the time now I try hard to change the subject. I'am not sure why these CT beliefs bother me so much more then any of the other woo belief but they do.

Same story here. It bothers me alot too and hell, I'm not even an American!

I think it's the shear stupidity of it all and the gross use of the human intellect that bugs me, plus the 3000 human beeings that were slaughtered that day beeing used for propaganda.

LordoftheLeftHand
7th April 2006, 03:52 PM
Well it happened, I've been suspended at the Loose Change Forum:


LordoftheLeftHand,
Your member account at Loose Change Forum has been temporarily suspended.

My warnings have fallen on deaf ears, you will be able to post again in 2 days, next infraction will be a week and 3rd will be a permanent ban.

FM258

Your account will not be functional until Apr 9 2006, 06:26 PM (depending on your timezone). This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.

That is odd, I don't think I committed any infractions, and I don't think I've received any warnings. And it appears I've been IP banned as well, so I can't even go back and look for infractions or warnings.

LLH

delphi_ote
7th April 2006, 04:07 PM
Well it happened, I've been suspended at the Loose Change Forum:


That is odd, I don't think I committed any infractions, and I don't think I've received any warnings. And it appears I've been IP banned as well, so I can't even go back and look for infractions or warnings.

LLH

Are they trying to mock the JREF style of banning? Or just pretend they're not banning people with no reason?

NoZed Avenger
7th April 2006, 06:46 PM
I've done some thinking/analysis on what makes things humorous, and your post here nails it. Economy of language, well-chosen words, and letting the reader make the final connection himself. Well done!


/blush

no one in particular
7th April 2006, 06:59 PM
He refers to "JREF" or "JREFers" about a dozen times on this page:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=60

Presumably he didn't mean it this way, but I can't figure out how this isn't a complement:

...they are certainly fit for the job of protecting us all from psychics and bigfoot photographers.

RandFan
7th April 2006, 11:42 PM
Well it happened, I've been suspended at the Loose Change Forum:


That is odd, I don't think I committed any infractions, and I don't think I've received any warnings. And it appears I've been IP banned as well, so I can't even go back and look for infractions or warnings.

LLH
A few days ago they acted like they were going to stop with all of the BS and act as a serious web site. BS.

De_Bunk
8th April 2006, 12:30 AM
Can we just all agree that they are very strange people who you wouldn't invite to a dinner party.

DB

Orphia Nay
8th April 2006, 02:30 AM
Excellent post by Gravy over at Loose Change:

...

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. –Mark Loiseaux

Now, Roxdog was responding to my comment to Zor that steel didn't have to melt in order for a damaged building to collapse: it had to weaken and expand, which steel does at a much lower temperature. Of course I wasn't talking about the basements, but about where the collapses began. Roxdog tried to change the subject and take it to the basement, literally.
Well, let's go there for a second. Yes, there was molten metal in the basements. Peter Tully, one of the other cleanup contractors,said "molten steel" Others said "molten metal." As far as I know, that metal was never tested. Does anyone know different? One thing I do know, from firsthand experience, is that there was lots of molten aluminum at the site. I've held great cooled blobs of it in my hand. The entire facades of 1 & 2 were aluminum, not to mention the aircraft and interior studwork. I don't know how much aluminum was in #7. Aluminum melts at about half the temperature that steel does. Satellite data indicate hotspots near the surface at around 700c – hot enough to melt aluminum. Could it have been molten aluminum in the basement, mixed with carbonized material? That seems perfectly possible to me. It's important to keep in mind that when we see "red hot" steel, that's not "molten," it's at about 650-800 c, and when it glows orange at around 980c. At around 1500-1600c most steel becomes molten (turns liquid) and appears white.
...


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=18&t=1765&p=3130547


Yay, Gravy! Great stuff! Excellent quote from Mark Loiseaux.
(Thanks, chipmonkstew. We should be compiling this stuff at skepticwiki or somewhere.)

I think (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1396114&postcount=612) you're right about the aluminium.

Shrinker
8th April 2006, 02:39 AM
Hey all, I've been watching this whole thing pretty closely but haven't had time to contribute more than couple of swipes. I just wanted to thank all the JREFers for their contributions to the "debate". I don't want to name names, out of fear of missing someone out, but there's half a dozen or so of you and you're doing an incredible job. It amazes me that those clowns are such experts in controlled demolition yet they can't spot one happening in their own forum. Superb work.

ETA, and don't think it's not making a difference. I got converted by skeptics who asked difficult questions and wouldn't let up. Many others will quietly follow.

chipmunk stew
8th April 2006, 06:11 AM
Another slam-dunk by Gravy:
Gravy,
Do you find it even remotely odd that 3 buildings collapsed in their own footprints on 911? That is, WTC1,2 and 7.
No steel framed building in history has ever collapsed as a result of fire. What are the odds that 3 buildings, in the same location, collapsed as a result of fire within 8 hours of each other?
See below for the "footprint issue"
Now Quest, are you being coy? You act as though the WTC collapses were unrelated to each other, rather than being the result of history's biggest terrorist attack. Those other steel frame buildings you speak of were not hit by airliners at 500 mph and did not sustain structural damage from other buildings hitting them and did not have giant tanks of diesel fuel inside and did not have totally helpless fire crews.
Steven E. Jones loves to show the shots of the northeast side of WTC7. Here are some quotes from his video (With the times they can be seen. Times may be off by a few secs):
7:33: It's not an inferno, certainly.
11:25: Building 7 was not hit by a plane. There ws no jet fuel. Fires were random, not particularly large, and certainly not an inferno.
12:10: Here in this photo you see the fires in building 7. A closeup and you see a little bit of fire in there. Not much.
14:15: Now here are photos seen in the late afternoon. Not a lot of fire here, or damage
Watch this video to see what's really happening, on the south side WTC7 south side (http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi)
Later, after he's been saying that steel buildings can't fall down from fire, he says of #7, "What you'd expect also from uncontrolled fires, something like this, you'd expect it to topple, twist, bend, and cause much more damage than it did (to other buildings)" So in Jones's own words the fire went from "Little bit of fire in there. Not much," to "uncontrolled" and something that can "topple" "twist" and "bend" a steel building.
Jones LOVES to bring up the fire in the 32-story Madrid Windsor Building which was destroyed but did not collapse. He doesn't mention that the Windsor Building was a concrete core, curtain wall building, not at al like the WTC buildings. Jones also neglects to remind us that the Windsor Building was not damaged by airplanes or falling buildings, nor were there large fuel tanks inside. The fire was started by a cigarette and was worst on the top 10 stories.
Here's an eyewitness quote about the damage (from a CT website, no less).
With morning light, the damage from the spectacular blaze that lit up the night and attracted thousands of onlookers was evident. The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away. (Source http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html)
Arup, a major fire safety engineering company, weighs in on the Madrid fire:
The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue. (Source http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150)
CDists frequently cite Jones as an suthority. You be the judge: is he telling the truth about these building fires? Five minutes of Googling was all it took to get this info.
I'm baffled why CDists are so receptive of this transparent phoney. As I've said before, Jones is the CDists worst nightmare. He's the physicist whose definitiion of "entropy" is, "Things topple over." I brought that up at JREF and it was declared "The worst misinterpretation of a science term, ever." But I'm just getting warmed up. You don't want to get me started on this guy.
As for the buildings falling neatly into their footprints, who put that idea into your heads? Tell that to all the buildings that were destroyed and damaged by debris, next to the falling buildings, AND far away from them. Just because a building doesn't fall over sideways, doesn't mean its collapse wasnt an enormous, widespread mess. Remember, we're talking about nearly a billion pounds coming down in a few seconds. You can see the 15-story gash in the Deutsche Bank building to this day, and the Wiinter Garden was destroyed by debris (aluminum) from 600 feet away.
The idea that this was a "controlled demolition" in the commercial sense is laughable, which is why the folks at CDI say it's ludicrous. The collapses are controlled by the laws of physics. The good thing is that because the towers were constructed as a tube-within-a-tube they fell as vertically as possible.
And that reminds me, I didn't address this issue this morning because it was off topic, but people were bringing up the whole "At or near freefall" issue, trying to use seismic data and papers from dental engineers to prove timing. Here's a photo that shows what's at or near freefall: the debris that's falling several hundred feet ahead of the collapsing building. (The photo is also a nice refutation of the idea that these buildings plopped neatly into their holes. Quite the contrary. They destroyed everything around them.
http://911myths.com/assets/images/Collapse.jpg
Wow, feels good to actually address some relevant issues after dealing with Alek!
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=120&#entry3153374

WildCat
8th April 2006, 06:31 AM
Another slam-dunk by Gravy:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=120&#entry3153374
Which earned him this from an admin over there:

Gravy,

That was a great picture of an exploding building.

Where did you get it?


Enough nonsense.

Gravy, you've been given enough time. I don't know who you are but I suggest you take your show elsewhere.

You've worn out your welcome here.
No rebuttal arguments, just a threat to ban him. What a bunch of complete cowards and losers.

senorpogo
8th April 2006, 06:50 AM
He refers to "JREF" or "JREFers" about a dozen times on this page:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=60

Just checking out the LC forum.
I love the way the Loizeaux family went from often cited experts to co-conspirators who worked with the government on covering up both the OCB and 9/11. Also interesting how this shift occurred right around the time that it was proven that the Loizeaux family did not believe that controlled demolition theory.

bob_kark
8th April 2006, 06:56 AM
Which earned him this from an admin over there:

No rebuttal arguments, just a threat to ban him. What a bunch of complete cowards and losers.

Can we really be surprised at this point? They know their ship is sinking, so they cling tighter to the railings. None of them are able to explain the physics behind their claims, so when someone challenges them, they have nothing to rely on other than the ramblings of a quack and a few intentionally vague films.

I would feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that the truth is smacking them in the face and they refuse to see it. I commend you all for making an extraordinary effort to talk sense to the woos on the fence. Just don't let the zealots bring you down.

kookbreaker
8th April 2006, 07:12 AM
Which earned him this from an admin over there:

No rebuttal arguments, just a threat to ban him. What a bunch of complete cowards and losers.

Unbelievable. And much like the the CT who accused this board of being 'incredulous', Gravy has been accused of having 'low cognitive dissonance'.

Loose Change Forum is the lowest batch of sniveling cowards. How many 'hardcore' LC'ers are left?

De_Bunk
8th April 2006, 07:33 AM
Looks like a giant Tarantula...

Now i'm really convinced...AmyWilson...Help me..

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/0ede83f87c.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)


DB

Nyarlathotep
8th April 2006, 07:37 AM
Unbelievable. And much like the the CT who accused this board of being 'incredulous', Gravy has been accused of having 'low cognitive dissonance'.

Further, he is a known extrovert and his mother is a thespian.:p

Between their verbal gaffes and their whining about Randfan using big words, I am convinced that they aren't very bright, which probably explains a lot about why they think what they think.

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 07:42 AM
Well it happened, I've been suspended at the Loose Change Forum:


That is odd, I don't think I committed any infractions, and I don't think I've received any warnings. And it appears I've been IP banned as well, so I can't even go back and look for infractions or warnings.

LLH

Sorry I didn't do this (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2020) sooner.

chipmunk stew
8th April 2006, 07:43 AM
Looks like a giant Tarantula...

Now i'm really convinced...AmyWilson...Help me..

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/0ede83f87c.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)


DBAnd it's smiling so evilly! :jaw-dropp

De_Bunk
8th April 2006, 09:03 AM
I also found the 'smiling' to be most sinister...

Its the work of Satan..

DB

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 09:21 AM
Now I'm suspended. :rolleyes:

ETA
Your acct has been suspended for 2 days. Your combative style of posting is not condusive to civil debate.

If it continues, you will be banned permanently.

FM258

Double :rolleyes:

Gravy
8th April 2006, 09:25 AM
And it's smiling so evilly! :jaw-dropp

Oh, you didn't! Well, that's one theory they haven't explored. Yet.

Gravy
8th April 2006, 09:33 AM
Now I'm suspended. :rolleyes:

ETA


Double :rolleyes:

Oh, they do "debate" civilly there. What fools. They just can't keep their cool, because they haven't got diddly in the way of facts or reason. I posted there about 40 times yesterday, and did I get a single answer to the questions I posed? You know the answer.

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 09:58 AM
Oh, they do "debate" civilly there. What fools. They just can't keep their cool, because they haven't got diddly in the way of facts or reason. I posted there about 40 times yesterday, and did I get a single answer to the questions I posed? You know the answer.
My last post there was about physics (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&view=findpost&p=3156246)!

senorpogo
8th April 2006, 10:02 AM
My last post there was about physics (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&view=findpost&p=3156246)!

Physics!?!? Such combative style is not condusive to civil debate.

bob_kark
8th April 2006, 10:10 AM
My last post there was about physics (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&view=findpost&p=3156246)!

That's the problem. You attempted to debate them as if they were reasonable, objective individuals. Had you simply used logical fallacies, especially argumentum ad populum, anecdotal evidence, and spurious correlations, they would have subscribed to your newsletter, Modern Globalist.

WildCat
8th April 2006, 10:11 AM
Now I'm suspended. :rolleyes:

ETA


Double :rolleyes:
Your crime was not agreeing w/ their idiotic theories and their flawed analysis.

I'll keep saying it, these people are cowards. Scratch that, they can't be so stupid as to believe all the crap they spew. Since they're selling Loose Change dvd's for $17.95 (http://www.loosechange911.com/) and making money off the google ads on the forums site, I'm going to offer what to me seems a more sensible explanation for the bans - they're making money off the victims of 9/11 and your and Gravy's posts threaten to derail the gravy train. These people are despicable scum who hover like vampires around the victims of 9/11.

Scum, despicable scum.

Pardalis
8th April 2006, 10:15 AM
Your crime was not agreeing w/ their idiotic theories and their flawed analysis.

I'll keep saying it, these people are cowards. Scratch that, they can't be so stupid as to believe all the crap they spew. Since they're selling Loose Change dvd's for $17.95 and making money off the google ads on the forums site, I'm going to offer what to me seems a more sensible explanation for the bans - they're making money off the victims of 9/11 and your and Gravy's posts threaten to derail the gravy train. These people are despicable scum who hover like vampires around the victims of 9/11.

Scum, despicable scum.

I'm sure they'll get distibuted in the Middle East by the Hezbolah like Michael Moore is. Not really a good idea to ease tensions over there...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079

WildCat
8th April 2006, 10:17 AM
I'm sure they'll get distibuted in the Middle East by the Hezbolah like Michael Moore is. Not really a good idea to ease tensions over there...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39079
All they need to do is blame the Jews in the next edition, and it's an instant best-seller over there.

bob_kark
8th April 2006, 10:29 AM
All they need to do is blame the Jews in the next edition, and it's an instant best-seller over there.

Ah, that'd be nice, then Stormfront and LC can merge and we can write them off completely.

WildCat
8th April 2006, 10:33 AM
Ah, that'd be nice, then Stormfront and LC can merge and we can write them off completely.
Funny you mentioned that (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1958)...

RandFan
8th April 2006, 10:42 AM
I posted two responses.

What rules did he violate? What did he do wrong?
I suspended him for 48 hrs, and I sent him an email saying why.

Would you please re-send the email message? To date I have not received it. To date I do not know why any action was taken against me.

1.) I never used fowl language.
2.) I never personally attacked anyone (though others did attack me).
3.) I never engaged in fallacy.
4.) When asked to watch a video or read a link I did.
5.) I am an honest and sincere person. Disagreement is not grounds to call someone a liar. Gut instinct is not a logically valid reason to make unwarranted assumptions.
6.) Reasonable people can disagree.
7.) Unreasonable people ban others who dissent (so much for complaints of the US government wishing to silence people).

So, I wont post a picture of pinochio as an aspersion against you (as you or another mod did to me) simply because I never recieved said email. It's plausible that it got lost in the system or that you used the wrong email address.

I'm sure that email is handy in your "sent" folder. Please resend, oh, better yet, copy and paste it in this thread. I think that would be appropriate in light of the fact that what I believe was an arbitrary and capricious act is the source of discussion on another forum. Let's be above board.

RandFan
8th April 2006, 10:45 AM
He's a troll just like you delphi. The whole lot of you should be banned in my opinion.

Yes, ban them, ban them all. Thank you Roxdog, I appreciate your transparency. A little honesty is nice from time to time. I have a feeling that no admin or mod will take exception to such an opinion posted on a site that purportedly seeks to establish the truth.

I have suggested that rules be posted on LC. One of those rules should be "No Trolls". Then you should post this definition and admonition to help newbies know and understand what is expected of them.

troll
v. trolled, troll•ing, trolls

To post opinion, links or data that contradicts the dogma of Loose Change.

Please note: Dissent will not be tolerated. It is your responsibility to watch the movie and change your mind. You will conform or you will be banned.

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 11:00 AM
Funny you mentioned that (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1958)...
I was about to post the exact same link. :D

My favorite quotes:
Yeah, hard to believe that the people the current orthodoxy regard as "evil" and "haters" could be anything but, huh?

Makes you think that the current administration would stoop low enough as to try and use the divide and conquer strategy to keep all of us suspicious of one another, huh?

Of course they'd never do that, would they?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1958&view=findpost&p=3117710

Popol,

Yeah, I've noticed the same.

When googling or doing a Yahoo search on many aspects of 911 some of the 1st hits I get are on Stormront's website.

Gee, you don't suppose the is 'accidently on purpose' do you?

Is there any way to counter this?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1958&view=findpost&p=3126554

The only thing I know for certain is that if the current elites are against someone, then they must be on the right track, be it Cynthia McKinney or David Duke.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1958&view=findpost&p=3128970

Hilarious.

RandFan
8th April 2006, 11:07 AM
I was about to post the exact same link. :D

Hilarious.:rolleyes: I was going to say "logic takes a holiday" but then I realized that logic must first be working to do so.

Manny
8th April 2006, 11:22 AM
Heh. Also note that the LC video, some of the Loosers and Alek in particular have an unusual fixation on Larry Silverstein. Now, he's never been president or Chairman of a mulitnational or anything like that -- he's just one of a dozen or so real estate billionaires in NYC. How could he get so deeply involved in such a thing? Hmmm...

Oh, yeah, it's only a matter of time before it was the Jews. The Joooooooos.

Peter@Beoworld
8th April 2006, 11:36 AM
Quote Randfan
1.) I never used fowl language.


Probably banned as they suspected you of conspiring to give them bird flu!

senorpogo
8th April 2006, 11:51 AM
Seeing Manny's avatar reminded me of a great Cheers' quote I saw earlier this week that could apply to the Loosers and most other woos.

As Cliff Clavin expouses the benefits of leeches as a medical tool....

Fraiser: "The practice of using leeches has been discredited for ages."
Cliff: "Discredited.... or covered up?"
Frasier: "Well, you got me there."

Regnad Kcin
8th April 2006, 12:06 PM
Heh. Also note that the LC video, some of the Loosers and Alek in particular have an unusual fixation on Larry Silverstein. Now, he's never been president or Chairman of a mulitnational or anything like that -- he's just one of a dozen or so real estate billionaires in NYC. How could he get so deeply involved in such a thing? Hmmm...

Oh, yeah, it's only a matter of time before it was the Jews. The Joooooooos.A Jew in NYC?! Get! Out!

Hellbound
8th April 2006, 12:07 PM
The Juice? Is he still around?

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 12:25 PM
Quote Randfan
1.) I never used fowl language.


Probably banned as they suspected you of conspiring to give them bird flu!
Or threatening to sick our very own adamantium-skeletoned super-hero (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/040706federlein.html#i4) on them! ;)

trvlr2
8th April 2006, 12:42 PM
Please! Please! Do not invoke the Mighty F/S!
You people seem to be handling this very well!:D

LordoftheLeftHand
8th April 2006, 12:53 PM
And it appears I've been IP banned as well, so I can't even go back and look for infractions or warnings.


Update: I guess I was mistaken, I have not been IP banned. It appears my login cookie just moves me to a special "you have been suspended" page if I try to go anywhere on the site. Cookie is now deleted.

LLH

RandFan
8th April 2006, 01:11 PM
Update: I guess I was mistaken, I have not been IP banned. It appears my login cookie just moves me to a special "you have been suspended" page if I try to go anywhere on the site. Cookie is now deleted.

LLHLOTH, there is only so much time a person needs to prove that he or she is sincere. Your time is running short. Conform or be banned.

Loose change is only for disemination of the *Truth™.

*Truth is that which the admins and mods of Loose Change says that it is. If your argument, logic, facts, data, etc., deviate from the dogma of Loose Change then it is not truth and does not really belong at Loose Change.

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 02:00 PM
Loose change is only for disemination of the *Truth™.

*Truth is that which the admins and mods of Loose Change says that it is. If your argument, logic, facts, data, etc., deviate from the dogma of Loose Change then it is not truth and does not really belong at Loose Change.
** Loose Change Truth™ is not for everbody. Talk to your doctor to see if Loose Change Truth™ is right for you. Do not take Loose Change Truth™ if you have a fondness for reality or facts. Loose Change Truth™ may cause diarrhea, stomach pain or bloating, gas, loss of appetite, weight loss, upset stomach, vomiting, constipation, indigestion, dry mouth, weakness, muscle cramps, especially in the legs, feeling of heaviness in the arms or legs, unsteadiness when walking, back pain, dizziness, nervousness, headache, memory problems, or difficult or irregular menstruation. Although erections lasting for more than four hours may occur rarely with Loose Change Truth™, to avoid long-term injuries, it is important to seek immediate medical help.

RandFan
8th April 2006, 02:03 PM
** Loose Change Truth™ is not for everbody. Talk to your doctor to see if Loose Change Truth™ is right for you. Do not take Loose Change Truth™ if you have a fondness for reality or facts. Loose Change Truth™ may cause diarrhea, stomach pain or bloating, gas, loss of appetite, weight loss, upset stomach, vomiting, constipation, indigestion, dry mouth, weakness, muscle cramps, especially in the legs, feeling of heaviness in the arms or legs, unsteadiness when walking, back pain, dizziness, nervousness, headache, memory problems, or difficult or irregular menstruation. Although erections lasting for more than four hours may occur rarely with Loose Change Truth™, to avoid long-term injuries, it is important to seek immediate medical help.Time for a new sig. :D

Dragon
8th April 2006, 02:56 PM
Gravy, and the rest you who are doing battle in another place - regarding Aluminium/Aluminum:-

Remembering vaguely some stuff from the Falklands War (HMS Sheffield etc) I did a bit of Googling and found the site of the Aluminium Federation (http://www.alfed.org.uk/site/alfed/home) here in the UK. In particular this page (http://www.alfed.org.uk/templates/alfed/content.asp?PageId=111) on 'Aluminium and Fire' has a very interesting picture of a burnt-out car which graphically illustrates the difference between the melting points of steel and aluminium alloys.

btw - you're doing great, I'm sure it makes a difference to the fence sitters and lurkers.

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 04:09 PM
Gravy, and the rest you who are doing battle in another place - regarding Aluminium/Aluminum:-

Remembering vaguely some stuff from the Falklands War (HMS Sheffield etc) I did a bit of Googling and found the site of the Aluminium Federation (http://www.alfed.org.uk/site/alfed/home) here in the UK. In particular this page (http://www.alfed.org.uk/templates/alfed/content.asp?PageId=111) on 'Aluminium and Fire' has a very interesting picture of a burnt-out car which graphically illustrates the difference between the melting points of steel and aluminium alloys.

btw - you're doing great, I'm sure it makes a difference to the fence sitters and lurkers.
A picture literally worth a thousand words. Thanks, Dragon!

Arkan_Wolfshade
8th April 2006, 04:36 PM
I really wonder if it physically hurts to be as stupid as they are over on the LC forums.

chipmunk stew
8th April 2006, 04:55 PM
The more I go over there, the more disgusted I get with these people's unchecked credulity.

This is just the latest thread that's deepened my depression:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2013

I need to take a break for a while. If it weren't such a quickly spreading meme, I'd just laugh it off, but their willingness to accept such specious premises on the flimsiest of evidence and to make such leaps and twists of illogic in order to bolster the Inside Job conclusion, especially about such a traumatic topic, makes my blood boil and makes me want to ring them each by the neck.

Regnad Kcin
8th April 2006, 05:20 PM
** Loose Change Truth™ is not for everbody. Talk to your doctor to see if Loose Change Truth™ is right for you. Do not take Loose Change Truth™ if you have a fondness for reality or facts. Loose Change Truth™ may cause diarrhea, stomach pain or bloating, gas, loss of appetite, weight loss, upset stomach, vomiting, constipation, indigestion, dry mouth, weakness, muscle cramps, especially in the legs, feeling of heaviness in the arms or legs, unsteadiness when walking, back pain, dizziness, nervousness, headache, memory problems, or difficult or irregular menstruation. Although erections lasting for more than four hours may occur rarely with Loose Change Truth™, to avoid long-term injuries, it is important to seek immediate medical help.Bravo!

trvlr2
8th April 2006, 05:27 PM
I keep thinking loose change= loose screws.

Arkan_Wolfshade
8th April 2006, 06:16 PM
3-d photographs of tower collapse:
http://www.brianloube.com/9-11-3d/index.html

rwguinn
8th April 2006, 06:20 PM
The more I go over there, the more disgusted I get with these people's unchecked credulity.

This is just the latest thread that's deepened my depression:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2013

I need to take a break for a while. If it weren't such a quickly spreading meme, I'd just laugh it off, but their willingness to accept such specious premises on the flimsiest of evidence and to make such leaps and twists of illogic in order to bolster the Inside Job conclusion, especially about such a traumatic topic, makes my blood boil and makes me want to ring them each by the neck. anyone who can get on over there post this link in that thread. (I can't even register...)

A UAL 737 turning on final got caught in a rotor (Turbulence below a standing wave wind flow over mountains) and went straight in. Crater was small, the whole fuselage acordianed into a single hole. Crash was in a park near Colorado Springs, Colorado, and witnessed by many people (who needed psychiatric help afterwards, as they could actually see the people inside)
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/030391.htm

valis
8th April 2006, 06:37 PM
The more I go over there, the more disgusted I get with these people's unchecked credulity.

This is just the latest thread that's deepened my depression:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2013

I need to take a break for a while. If it weren't such a quickly spreading meme, I'd just laugh it off, but their willingness to accept such specious premises on the flimsiest of evidence and to make such leaps and twists of illogic in order to bolster the Inside Job conclusion, especially about such a traumatic topic, makes my blood boil and makes me want to ring them each by the neck.


I honestly don't know how you can stand to go over there and talk to these people. That whole my proffessors best friend thing is jaw droppingly stupid. What is so bizarre about it is that now this is not just the upper echelon that is in on the plot. Somehow the dozens of rank and file folks that work on the plane, load and unload weapons etc. either don't notice or just quietly keep their mouths shut about the murder of 3K of their fellow Americans?

valis
8th April 2006, 06:45 PM
anyone who can get on over there post this link in that thread. (I can't even register...)

A UAL 737 turning on final got caught in a rotor (Turbulence below a standing wave wind flow over mountains) and went straight in. Crater was small, the whole fuselage acordianed into a single hole. Crash was in a park near Colorado Springs, Colorado, and witnessed by many people (who needed psychiatric help afterwards, as they could actually see the people inside)
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/030391.htm


Something is funny here. I read the report and it does not have a definitive reason for the crash. It has 'the two most likely reasons', what are they trying to hide?

If there is one thing I have learned from reading this thread it is:

Unanswered question or lack of certainty = Proof of conspiracy

pipelineaudio
8th April 2006, 06:46 PM
anyone who can get on over there post this link in that thread. (I can't even register...)



done

rwguinn
8th April 2006, 06:55 PM
Something is funny here. I read the report and it does not have a definitive reason for the crash. It has 'the two most likely reasons', what are they trying to hide?

If there is one thing I have learned from reading this thread it is:

Unanswered question or lack of certainty = Proof of conspiracy
d*mn
You're right. This conspiracy goes further into the past than we figured. All the way back to GHWB!!

delphi_ote
8th April 2006, 09:46 PM
d*mn
You're right. This conspiracy goes further into the past than we figured. All the way back to GHWB!!
It goes back to King Tut, actually. We had to start early on this one. It was a doosey! Do you have any idea how hard it is to plot something like this before architecture or aviation have even been invented yet?! Fortunately, our head start allowed us to get the plans written up before that damn Newton went and proved it was all impossible.

Dave_46
9th April 2006, 01:52 AM
A further note on the melting of aluminium. I spent the years from 1972 to 1991 performing fire resistance tests, which included a lot of fire resistng doors. In a half hour test the temperature reaches about 850 Deg C. It was normal to see the aluminium door handles as a lump on the floor of the test furnace after having melted during and solidified after the test. The steel parts of the lock/latch mechanism would still be in place.

Dave

Dave_46
9th April 2006, 03:58 AM
Pedant/nitpick mode on

I have seen in various posts that reference is made to fireproofing of the steel. Nothing can make the steel fireproof. What is applied is fire protection which protects the steel for a period of time from the effects of fire.

Pedant/nitpick mode off

The protection is not indefinite. Typically the protection will be for one or two hours of specified exposure to fire. This means that in practice the protection may last a longer or shorter time, depending on the severity of the fire exposure. This also assumes it has not been damaged, for example by the impact of a large body.

Dave

WildCat
9th April 2006, 08:41 AM
Now the loosers are getting closer to blaming the Jooooooooos (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2048) for 9/11, even linking to this anti-semitic site (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm) as evidence.

pipelineaudio
9th April 2006, 08:43 AM
blaming the joooooos is an old trick on that forum unfortunately :(

chipmunk stew
9th April 2006, 02:00 PM
They banned Gravy!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=160

:dl:

Gravy
9th April 2006, 02:01 PM
Quite the "Truth Movement" they have there at Loose Change. Wow. That was way worse than I expected.

TheQuest Posted: Apr 9 2006, 08:29 PM

Gravy,

In another time we might have spent more time with you but time is of the essence now and you've wasted far too much of it and have upset regular members with less than honest debate.

You are banned.
I guess "time s of the essence" explains why they can't take 30 seconds to check a single fact.

If anyone's interested, I encourage you to go to the LC thread I started and judge for yourself if my debate was "less than honest." $100 goes to anyone who can show that it was. Quest gets involved on page 5:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=120

Better yet, go to any thread there and link to mine with the question "Why was this person banned?" Maybe there are some independent thinkers there who will raise a fuss.

There are some absolute doozies from the Loosers in there. Mind you, I went there looking for info from their perspective, not to challenge anyone, and they bombarded me with questions. So I answered.The wild thing is, I've only been looking into these issues for a matter of DAYS, and was able to refute every woo claim with facts almost immediately.

Banned? Promoted to sanity is more like it. Good grief.

(edited for the hell of it)

chipmunk stew
9th April 2006, 02:14 PM
Quite the "Truth Movement" they have there at Loose Change. Wow. That was way worse than I expected.


I guess "time s of the essence" explains why they can't take 30 seconds to check a single fact.

If anyone's interested, I encourage you to go to the LC thread I started and judge for yourself if my debate was "less than honest." $100 goes to anyone who can show that it was. Quest gets involved on page 5:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=120

Better yet, go to any thread there and link to mine with the question "Why was this person banned?" Maybe there are some independent thinkers there who will raise a fuss.

There are some absolute doozies from the Loosers in there. Mind you, I went there looking for info from their perspective, not to challenge anyone, and they bombarded me with questions. So I answered.The wild thing is, I've only been looking into these issues for a matter of DAYS, and was able to refute every woo claim with facts almost immediately.

Banned? Promoted to sanity is more like it. Good grief.

(edited for the hell of it)"Why was Gravy banned? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2076)"

We'll see what they say.

WildCat
9th April 2006, 02:39 PM
"Why was Gravy banned? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2076)"

We'll see what they say.
Wow! What a bunch of fascists they have there, no free speech allowed!

Yeah_Right
9th April 2006, 02:52 PM
The Loose Change gang is going to be on a woo webcast on this site between 8 and 9pm EST. http://www.ghostlytalk.com/

Yeah_Right
9th April 2006, 02:53 PM
Ooops I should that that the webcast is on this Sunday evening.

Gravy
9th April 2006, 03:07 PM
"Why was Gravy banned? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2076)"

We'll see what they say.
Thanks Chipmunk. Quest posted that several long-termers complained about me...wonder if that's true or if they'll pop up. Roxdog was awfully silent after I told him to apologize. I loved Quest's quote, "I don't know who you are, but..." as if I was some kind of ringer. What a maroon!

Gravy
9th April 2006, 03:22 PM
(TheQuest @ Apr 9 2006, 04:59 PM)
Chipmunk stew,
What are you sorry for?

Chipmunk: I'm sorry that you've become what you're fighting against.

Best. Response. Ever.

Gravy
9th April 2006, 04:41 PM
That you, Quest? (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-09T222214Z_01_N09306435_RTRUKOC_0_US-WHITEHOUSE-INTRUDER.xml)

By the way, if anyone needs a good video that refutes the idea that there wasn't a massive fire in WTC 7, this will do it:WTC 7 Inferno (http://thewebfairy.com/911/7/) (warning, it's 26+megs. You may want to download and view later)

On that page go to 2:58 in this movie: wtc_plusrubble.mov - 30megs There is a 10-second, clear, HQ view of black smoke pouring out of almost every visible floor (the lighter colored smoke in the low foreground is from tower rubble). CDers said there was no clear video of this event. It took me 2 minutes to find it. And if you want a kick on that site click on the video "Natural clouds aren't geometric" to see what the moron thinks is a geometric cloud.

My last post of the day over there was going to be a challenge to Robo prove that the government and major media have covered up the OK City bombing in 1995. He says he knows as a fact that additional explosives were used in teh Murrah building, and I want to see his proof. He's using this idea, as others are there, as "evidence" against Controlled Demolition Inc." to further their 9/11 conspiracy theory.
(Robo on Loose Change "Controlled Demolitioons" thread: You just don't get it. You just aren't living in the real world with regard to our Justice system and our media. You're being lied to. If you will sincerely listen to what I'm trying to tell you, your world might just change. Maybe you really don't want that though. I know for a fact that federal authorities already have this evidence
Anyone wanna request that proof? It sure seems that's our duty as Americans to get this info out there.You can say it was my request because I didn't get to finish posting today.

delphi_ote
9th April 2006, 05:28 PM
Quite the "Truth Movement" they have there at Loose Change. Wow. That was way worse than I expected.


I guess "time s of the essence" explains why they can't take 30 seconds to check a single fact.

If anyone's interested, I encourage you to go to the LC thread I started and judge for yourself if my debate was "less than honest." $100 goes to anyone who can show that it was. Quest gets involved on page 5:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=120

Better yet, go to any thread there and link to mine with the question "Why was this person banned?" Maybe there are some independent thinkers there who will raise a fuss.

There are some absolute doozies from the Loosers in there. Mind you, I went there looking for info from their perspective, not to challenge anyone, and they bombarded me with questions. So I answered.The wild thing is, I've only been looking into these issues for a matter of DAYS, and was able to refute every woo claim with facts almost immediately.

Banned? Promoted to sanity is more like it. Good grief.

(edited for the hell of it)
Oh no! :brokenheart: :(

You were kicking ass and taking names over there, Gravy!

P.S. I'm still not banned... I'm biding my time to let them forget about us... then I plan on making a BIG post. ;)

Arkan_Wolfshade
9th April 2006, 05:43 PM
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but it seems from some of the posts there, that we are having a good impact on some of the less extreme LC forumites.

WildCat
9th April 2006, 06:04 PM
Look at this mind-boggling quote (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=150&#last) from the LC admin FM258:
And people who have already made up there mind, and are only here to cause a stir and argue endlessly will be shown the door. I feel we are past whether or not this was a conspiracy, and now on to the details.

Unless they've made up their mind that it is a massive gov't conspiracy, in fact having made up your mind that it is a massive gov't conspiracy is apparently a requirement for posting on that forum.

Conspiranazis.

RandFan
9th April 2006, 06:17 PM
This is what RedPillNeo had to say:

Learn to be more accepting of suggestions and criticism. Experience has shown me that people who gush praise tend to offer NO useful information. The people who criticise, question, argue, and contradict, on the other hand, are a WEALTH of useful information, IF you learn to see and use it. This took me years to "get", by the way. In my own studies and activism, it has almost always been doubters who drop the golden nugget of an idea, point up weaknesses in data, evidence, and presentation, shed light on areas that need clarification, reveal new angles of attack upon theories, and perhaps most importantly, provided insight into the mindset of opponents. All of this information has helped me become a better activist and debater. It is a longer and more frustrating, and you don't get the instant gratification that a screaming match or flaming post can offer. To be a good activist, one must learn patience, because humans are reluctant to change their minds, and even more reluctant to do so in front of someone during a debate. That idea didn't last long.

chipmunk stew
9th April 2006, 06:25 PM
This is what RedPillNeo had to say:

That idea didn't last long.Here's what TheQuest is proposing--"Wisdom Of Allowing Trolls To Overstay Visit":
To LC staff,

With the internet freedom being threatend on a daily basis and the impending attack on Iran, I question the wisdom of letting obvious trolls overstay their welcome on LC forums.

My time could be much better spent burning DVD's and spreading the truth as opposed to letting non-productive people clutter the boards and ticking off productive members in dishonest debate.

For the life of me I can't see the wisdom of letting this continue unabatted.

It's one thing to let people come in and debate until we are more sure of their intentions but it's another animal altogether to let them purposely bog down our efforts. This is not like we are debating art or religion and we have forever. We do not. Our time is limited as are our resources. Wouldn't our time be much better spent to help legit newbies and with activism? Furthermore, we are about to attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons and we risk WW3. In the background looms another 911.

As I write there are several visitors here that are dragging us down and I am about to put a stop to it. Please get back to me asap so that we can discuss the topic and act accordingly.

Thanks
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2071

WildCat
9th April 2006, 06:28 PM
Here's what TheQuest is proposing--"Wisdom Of Allowing Trolls To Overstay Visit":

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2071
A dark journey into the paranoid mind of a conspiracy woo, what a terrifying place he must be in...

delphi_ote
9th April 2006, 06:41 PM
Here's what TheQuest is proposing--"Wisdom Of Allowing Trolls To Overstay Visit":

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2071
:sheep::sheep::sheep::sheep::zzw:
Keep 'em in line, TheQuest.

schplurg
9th April 2006, 07:36 PM
I emailed the producer of the Loose Change DVD yesterday and invited him over. Here it is (most recent email on top. okay so I started the discussion rather immaturely hehe):

--------------------------------------------------------------
**** wrote:

You are selling these DVD's? Profiting off of this?

You people are scum. Get f****d.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Dylan Avery wrote: mike, go watch it for free:

http://www.question911.com (http://www.question911.com/)
http://video.google.com (http://video.google.com/)

Oh, and did you miss this notice on our front page?

"We will gladly send a free DVD to anybody who lost friends or family on September 11th, 2001 (http://www.loosechange911.com/victims.htm)"

Why don't you send an e-mail to Michael Moore? Fahrenheit 9-11 put $50 million straight into his pocket. And why don't you do some research while you're at it?
-dylan
---------------------------------------------------------

Sir,
Actually, I have done all you suggested. I have also participated in discussions regarding this film, which I have seen in its entirety. How could I possibly research your prepoterous claims when all the structural engineers and credible - I say credible - evidence is against it? There is no evidence to look at aside from your film.

What exactly should I research that backs up your claims? Where is this evidence? Where are the experts? Demolitions experts and structural engineers agree that the logistics of setting up such a large scale controlled demolition would be such a huge undertaking as to be virtually impossible, especially without anyone noticing the preparation.

Knocking out walls, cutting support beams in preparation....have you ever seen the amount of work that goes into a building demolition? Obviously not.

I HAVE done my research. Point me to a single peer reviewed (or not) study from a structural engineer that disputes the official story. Just one.

If you would like to see a thorough debunking of Loose Change, I suggest you visit the James Randi forum where some of your minions have been trying to convince us of this conspiracy.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

If you are really concerned, answer me this. What are you people doing besides selling videos? Are you petitioning Congress or filing any lawsuits with all this hard evidence?

At least Michael Moore attempted to back up his claims with more than just a few "suspicious looking" video tapes. I won't debate you via email.

If you would like to join the discussion at this site I invite you to do so. I promise you will be treated cordially. I know my original email wasn't very polite, but I personally have grown tired of this sort of baseless conspiracy junk.

Gravy
9th April 2006, 07:44 PM
What sad paranoia.
First, "Endtimes" Quest posed some questions to me. Then he badgered me with two posts and a PM within a few hours, when I was out. When I responded honestly, he wigged out said I had overstayed my welcome.
I asked for specifics and got no reply. Then he said I was bothering people and was banned. Bothering people, on a thread I started? I didn't go to anyone else's thread. None. He must think I have some magic powers of attraction. But its it's more than Quest: Loosers can't defend themselves after coming to my thread and debating? I want to laugh about this but I find it terribly, terribly depressing that people can be so delusional.

RandFan
9th April 2006, 08:07 PM
They are being really nice to me at the moment. I'm thinking maybe there is something to this whole conspiracy thing. Look at the video guys.
























:D

Regnad Kcin
9th April 2006, 08:53 PM
Conspiranazis.From Nabisco!

And be sure to try new fat-free Conspiranazis, in your grocer's!

schplurg
9th April 2006, 09:01 PM
You had me there for about 4 seconds, RandFan. My blood pressure actually went up, I swear!

Orphia Nay
9th April 2006, 09:57 PM
Gravy, and the rest you who are doing battle in another place - regarding Aluminium/Aluminum:-

Remembering vaguely some stuff from the Falklands War (HMS Sheffield etc) I did a bit of Googling and found the site of the Aluminium Federation (http://www.alfed.org.uk/site/alfed/home) here in the UK. In particular this page (http://www.alfed.org.uk/templates/alfed/content.asp?PageId=111) on 'Aluminium and Fire' has a very interesting picture of a burnt-out car which graphically illustrates the difference between the melting points of steel and aluminium alloys.

btw - you're doing great, I'm sure it makes a difference to the fence sitters and lurkers.

Excellent link, Dragon! I now have it bookmarked for posterity. Thanks very much.

I agree with you about the fence-sitters and lurkers.

It seems the types of people believing those claims generally swallow what they read whole, no questions asked. At least if they are presented with evidence that contradicts those claims at the site they read regularly, they may be forced to weigh up the information.

Orphia Nay
9th April 2006, 10:08 PM
Dylan Avery wrote:

Oh, and did you miss this notice on our front page?

"We will gladly send a free DVD to anybody who lost friends or family on September 11th, 2001 (http://www.loosechange911.com/victims.htm)"



:mad: :mad: (I saw that a while ago - don't remind me!)

Translation (paraphrasing Nyarlathotep):

"We will gladly defecate on your memories and the graves of your friends or family."

schplurg, thanks for sharing those emails with us. I'd like to see him here where he will be confronted with some real evidence.

Gravy
9th April 2006, 10:13 PM
Excellent link, Dragon! I now have it bookmarked for posterity. Thanks very much.

I agree with you about the fence-sitters and lurkers.

It seems the types of people believing those claims generally swallow what they read whole, no questions asked. At least if they are presented with evidence that contradicts those claims at the site they read regularly, they may be forced to weigh up the information.

I find Dragon's abuse of aluminum deleterious to the feng shui of this board. You are banished, Dragon. Begone!

delphi_ote
9th April 2006, 10:34 PM
"We will gladly defecate on your memories and the graves of your friends or family."
But it's a FREE DVD! Those things make great coasters and frisbees! When you really think about it in the big scheme of things, those families are actually pretty lucky! The rest of us have to go all the way to Google Video and type in two words to find a free copy of this outstanding film.

:rolleyes:

Orphia Nay
9th April 2006, 11:14 PM
I'm in a debate about this stuff at another forum, and the CTer continually refers to LC. I am unable to download or view it on the PC I use at home, so am unable to check the claims of the 'manufacturers' that 'prove' the wheel and engine parts found at the Pentagon are not those of a 757.

I've asked for names, positions, and locations of these 'manufacturers', but I'm not having much luck.

(This is someone who believes a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but he:
admits he doesn't know what happened to the plane full of passengers,
admits he doesn't know how a wheel and engine parts got into the debris,
and is close to admitting Mari-Rae Sopper not die as a result of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, despite her being on the plane and her remains having been identified in the debris...)

:rolleyes:

Gravy
10th April 2006, 12:59 AM
I'm in a debate about this stuff at another forum, and the CTer continually refers to LC. I am unable to download or view it on the PC I use at home, so am unable to check the claims of the 'manufacturers' that 'prove' the wheel and engine parts found at the Pentagon are not those of a 757.

I've asked for names, positions, and locations of these 'manufacturers', but I'm not having much luck.

(This is someone who believes a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but he:
admits he doesn't know what happened to the plane full of passengers,
admits he doesn't know how a wheel and engine parts got into the debris,
and is close to admitting Mari-Rae Sopper not die as a result of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, despite her being on the plane and her remains having been identified in the debris...)

:rolleyes:
There's a good quote from someone who handled plane and body parts here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

Another good general 9/11 debunking site with links to Pentagon photos is http://www.911myths.com The wheel rim comparison is particularly telling.

Dragon
10th April 2006, 02:12 AM
I find Dragon's abuse of aluminum deleterious to the feng shui of this board. You are banished, Dragon. Begone!Aluminium, mmmmm, the metal that melts in your mouth but not in your hand!

chipmunk stew
10th April 2006, 03:25 AM
No wonder he's making some people here feel very uncomfortable.
You can close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum really loud, but if you choose to simply ignore people like Gravy, you are deluding yourself. Ultimately, this movement will have to stand and face people like Gravy

Anyone with an ounce of objectivity here knows exactly why Gravy was banned.

I agree. Being banned for "less than honest debate" has got to be one of the strangest reasons I've ever heard. Imagine the furore that would have been created if this reason had been given on a pro-government forum.

Actually what is "less than honest debate". He can only debate if others respond to his posts can't he? Are you now saying you dictate what can and can't be discussed? And why ban Gravy rather than the people who were also part of the debate? From this I take it to mean that "less than honest debate" means that anyone who takes part in a debate who doesn't already believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy will get banned.

The Loose Change video will get more people interested and asking questions, but as soon as they do any more in depth research and start looking at these kind of forums the majority of people will run a mile.

I also see a thread dicussing the banning of Gravy seems to have disappeared too. Cover-up?

I came here as someone open to any possibility, but what I've seen has made me think this "truth" has no credibility whatsoever. I started off by asking some questions which I didn't understand, got some answers but also some patronising and hostile replies. Now I just come here for entertainment. The thread showing the in-fighting between different 9/11 truth camps is hilarious.

I don't understand what is meant by a poster taking up too much of your time either, how is someone posting taking up too much time? You just want people to hear what you have to say and agree without questioning you? If someone is taking up too much of your time, why don't you just let others debate with him and you do something else with your time.

For entertainment purposes this site is good, and quite eye-opening too (not necessarily for the reasons some would hope for). I can understand how people can become what they are fighting against by reading this.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=150

:D

Orphia Nay
10th April 2006, 03:47 AM
There's a good quote from someone who handled plane and body parts here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

Another good general 9/11 debunking site with links to Pentagon photos is http://www.911myths.com The wheel rim comparison is particularly telling.

Thanks, Gravy. Annoyngly, I find now that linking to the Popular Mechanics article makes them link to a serendipity.com(or some such) which 'debunks' that site, and they fail to address your exact point. Though I'm glad you made me look at that page again, because this CTer was talking about the intact windows, which are actually blast-resistant.

I came back to add that if I get the names etc. of the 'manufacturers' in LC, I will try and check their credentials, hopefully with the help of a friend who works for Boeing in Seattle.

I've shown this CTer this site
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
(from rense.com, no less, and linked to by 911myths.com) but he still adheres to the anonymous sources in 'Loose Change'. :rolleyes:

Belz...
10th April 2006, 04:41 AM
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=150

:D

I really liked the "what are you doing to help our cause, CMS" part. Yeah, like THEY are doing anything to help their cause, except whine.

Sultanist
10th April 2006, 07:44 AM
It'll be interesting to see how they respond to this.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2099&st=0#entry3231296

Believe me, the response will be as predictable as the sun rising. I could almost write their script right now. :D

CurtC
10th April 2006, 07:47 AM
By the way - the Popular Mechanics 9/11 pages are very hard to read for me because they're laid out to be three or four screens wide, and I have to scroll left and right to read each line. Does anyone else see this? I'm using Firefox.

kookbreaker
10th April 2006, 07:58 AM
"Speed of Gravity! Speed of Gravity Waaaaaaaaah!!!"

Sultanist
10th April 2006, 08:11 AM
Believe me, the response will be as predictable as the sun rising. I could almost write their script right now. :D
Well I'll be damned, they sure fooled me. They weren't as predictable as I thought. They're back to claiming that the building should have fallen over like a tree. Even I never could have predicted anything as assinine as that. :D

money
10th April 2006, 09:13 AM
Faster than the speed of gravity...

Wow. You'd think there would be some CT'ers with enough sense to convince their brethren that this sort of thing just makes them look ignorant. (And I know this claim is really no worse than the no-plane theory or them blaming it all on the joos.)

Has any CTer yet explained a method in which a building could come down faster than free fall? Wasn't there something about "implosion" which created a vaccuum?

This may be the most contradictory, willfully obtuse bunch I've seen.

chipmunk stew
10th April 2006, 10:28 AM
chipmunk stew,

FM258 has sent you this email from http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php.


Your acct has been suspended for 7 days. Your combative style of posting is not condusive to civil debate.

If it continues, you will be banned permanently.

FM258I got this email at about 10 this morning. I'm may be wrong, but I don't think regular members Roxdog, OCMARK, or Zor have ever been suspended for their combative style.

Kochanski
10th April 2006, 10:41 AM
I got this email at about 10 this morning. I'm may be wrong, but I don't think regular members Roxdog, OCMARK, or Zor have ever been suspended for their combative style.

You are just on the wrong side of the combat.

So you are a bad boy and must have a time out in the corner. Maybe then you will learn that they are right, they are always right, and disagreeing with them is so very wrong :p

I don't know how you guys wade in over there. The few times I have tried to read anything there, I read a post or two and it just makes my head hurt so much I have to get out as quickly as possible.

NobbyNobbs
10th April 2006, 11:36 AM
Well, I have made my first ever post at the Loose Change forum. I'm very curious what will come of it. Here's what I posted....

"I'm brand new here, and on the fence. I've been doing some reading, but haven't yet formed an opinion one way or the other. Before posting much, however, I wanted to get information about something.

I noticed while lurking here that there is much discussion about banning. I was wondering if there is, somewhere on this site, a list of activities/arguments, etc., that will get you banned. Is it spelled out anywhere? I ask because I don't want to inadvertantly do any of those things in my quest for information on what really happened on 9/11.

I'd be very appreciative to anyone who can point me in the right direction. Thanks."

RandFan
10th April 2006, 11:48 AM
I got this email at about 10 this morning. I'm may be wrong, but I don't think regular members Roxdog, OCMARK, or Zor have ever been suspended for their combative style.There really is some atrocious behavior on that site. There is some effort to stop some of it like the suspension of Alek but you can be combative if you toe the line.

RandFan
10th April 2006, 11:51 AM
Well, I have made my first ever post at the Loose Change forum. I'm very curious what will come of it. Here's what I posted....

"I'm brand new here, and on the fence. I've been doing some reading, but haven't yet formed an opinion one way or the other. Before posting much, however, I wanted to get information about something.

I noticed while lurking here that there is much discussion about banning. I was wondering if there is, somewhere on this site, a list of activities/arguments, etc., that will get you banned. Is it spelled out anywhere? I ask because I don't want to inadvertantly do any of those things in my quest for information on what really happened on 9/11.

I'd be very appreciative to anyone who can point me in the right direction. Thanks."Cool, welcome.

Don't worry, you will be warned before any action is taken and there is an appeal process here.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744

Manny
10th April 2006, 11:56 AM
Ha! That maroon Roxdog just made an animated .gif of 7 WTC falling (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2099&st=30). Slowing down one of the tapes, it shows the building falling slightly to the south, just like they say it "should have!"

brodski
10th April 2006, 12:21 PM
Ha! That maroon Roxdog just made an animated .gif of 7 WTC falling (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2099&st=30). Slowing down one of the tapes, it shows the building falling slightly to the south, just like they say it "should have!"
Doesn't anyone over there notice from that that the "squibs" only appear on the picture after the building has begun to fall, almost as if, oh I don't know they weren't "squibs" at all, just debris being ejected from the building as it compressed. It where "squibs" surely we would see them go off before the collapse, or are these magic time reversing squibs? You know, the ones which demolish things and then blow up.
I have to keep myself from asking "how stupid can these people get", because I'm worried at what the answer may be...

Gravy
10th April 2006, 12:23 PM
Ultimately, this movement will have to stand and face people like Gravy.
Not the way they run it. They claim to be "investigating" something, but its curious how their investigation never includes any actual investigating. I was trying to encourage them to do some real investigating, rather than just twiddling their mice. I gave them specific leads to track down. But they will not enter the real world.

Robo on LC kept saying that there was no real investigation (they all say that). I said that if he were in charge, he'd still be looking for explosives and Moussaoui would be a free man.

They're just running a conspiracy theory workshop, and they'll be no closer to the truth 10 years from now.Look at the JFK conspiracy theory and the Oklahoma City bombing theory. Any progress there? That's the whole idea. What would their lives be without conspiracies?

brodski
10th April 2006, 12:24 PM
Cool, welcome.

Don't worry, you will be warned before any action is taken and there is an appeal process here.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744
Um NobbyNobs is "one of us" his question on forum rules &c. was reposted from the LC forum, where he has just started posting.
Or did you get that and have I missed the subtly of your post? :confused:

Gravy
10th April 2006, 12:26 PM
Doesn't anyone over there notice from that that the "squibs" only appear on the picture after the building has begun to fall, almost as if, oh I don't know they weren't "squibs" at all, just debris being ejected from the building as it compressed. It where "squibs" surely we would see them go off before the collapse, or are these magic time reversing squibs? You know, the ones which demolish things and then blow up.
I have to keep myself from asking "how stupid can these people get", because I'm worried at what the answer may be...

Yeah, I went over the squib thing a few times with them, and included fun experiments they could try at home. No effect.

brodski
10th April 2006, 12:45 PM
Yeah, I went over the squib thing a few times with them, and included fun experiments they could try at home. No effect. But their own videos SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO SQUIBS. :eusa_wall:
maybe thats why I only posted once over there.

(PS if anyone one wants a spare LC forum account, PM me, only one careful post...)

Gravy
10th April 2006, 01:04 PM
Well, I have made my first ever post at the Loose Change forum. I'm very curious what will come of it. Here's what I posted....

"I'm brand new here, and on the fence. I've been doing some reading, but haven't yet formed an opinion one way or the other. Before posting much, however, I wanted to get information about something.

I noticed while lurking here that there is much discussion about banning. I was wondering if there is, somewhere on this site, a list of activities/arguments, etc., that will get you banned. Is it spelled out anywhere? I ask because I don't want to inadvertantly do any of those things in my quest for information on what really happened on 9/11.

I'd be very appreciative to anyone who can point me in the right direction. Thanks."

Why not ask the admins to post their new "martial law" rules as part of the membership agreement? I would make things easy for a lot of newcomers. It would have saved me a LOT of time. The statement could be as simple as, "Members must agree with all claims made in all Loose Change videos and publications."

Gravy
10th April 2006, 01:07 PM
[QUOTE=brodski;1563949]But their own videos SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO SQUIBS. :eusa_wall:
maybe thats why I only posted once over there.

Do you have the special glasses? You need those to see the squibs.

Gravy
10th April 2006, 01:44 PM
Note: I don't expect anyone to read all of this. It's meant to be more of a scrolly visual aid to understanding the depth of the CTists refusal to present factual evidence that supports their claims.

The thread I started at LC, which was only up for a few days until I was banned, began with the first question below. Pretty simple, right? Maybe too simple, because I had to keep clarifying what It was I was looking for. Anyway, not confrontational at all, on my part.

But the Loosers kept coming back to ME with questions. I answered them ALL, except Roxdog's. He was very rude and I told him he'd need to apologize and agree to a civil and serious discussion before I'd deal with him again. (See, Loosers, you don't have to hide behind mommy's skirts when a big meanie comes around.)

Below is a list of MY questions, all of which went unanswered by the Loosers.

"CD" stands for "controlled demolition"

********************

Does anyone know of a good resource that attempts to explain in detail how CD at the WTC might have been carried out?

And what type of explosives and wireless detonators can work reliably after being exposed to the impact of aircraft and subsequent extremely high temperatures?

When was that work done, and how could it have gone undetected?

If as you say the buildings were wired to the hilt with explosives, HOW was that work done, HOW did it remain undetected before and after it was completed, and HOW did it survive the trauma of the crashes, explosions and fire?

What do you think about WTC 1, and about the "conventional" demolition of WTC 7?

I repeated this a few times. Your posts didn't address those questions at all. Can you see this?

Do you think it's plausible that the towers were completely wired with explosives in the 1960s and 70s, and WTC 7 in the early 1980s, and that this work went undetected by the workers and inspectors who were there every day for years during construction, and remained undetected until 2001?

How did they do it? Any theories? And who has had their finger on the trigger the whole time?

Do you really think that several million pounds of building falling on itself won't blow out windows?

Can you point out some squibs prior to collapse?

How would you test it? (Roxdog said CD could be tested).

I would like to hear from Roxdog on how CD could be tested. That would have to include, of course, explaining my original questions:
How was the work done?
How did it go undetected?
How did it survive?

I originally was just asking anyone to point me to some resources that attempt to answer these questions. Does anyone know of such resources?

Since you know the "facts," why are you avoiding my questions?

How was the work done?
How did it go undetected?
How did it survive?

Can you think of a rational explanation for that? Such as the air pressure increase caused by 100 million pounds of building falling into itself (each tower weighed in the neighborhood of a billion pounds)?

Any ideas about my questions?

Can you provide evidence for these "facts"? Or are they speculation on your part?

If you're talking about me, Roxdog, can you be specific, please?

The claims in that material were easily refuted there, and people had plenty of questions for you, but you didn't stick around for the discussion. Why?

How was the work done?
How did it go undetected?
How did it survive?

Zor (or anyone) do you know the engineer's name and affiliation?

Still here, Roxdog? And still unwilling to share your "expertise"? Why? That's a serious question. Why?

I'll say it again: do you think what you're doing is helpful? Is it mature?

Alek, the very questions I'm seeking answers to here, I asked directly of you on the JREF forum. You didn't reply.

I encourage you to go back and read the post Roxdog started there as "conspiracybeliever," then give me specifics that will back up your story.

I spent hours on that response. You may disagtree with what I said in it, but is that a case of me slobbering over what other JREFers said? Is that being "half-baked?"

I'm stunned at how often I see CD proponents trumpet their beliefs as facts. You can see several examples of that just within this thread. Why is that tolerated?

Zor, you asked me to read a technical paper, and gave a link titled "Mechanical engineer blows apart the 'PANCAKE THEORY." BUT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE PAPER IS WRITTEN BY A MECHANICAL ENGINEER?

Zor, how do you respond to the FACT that THE PEOPLE THAT YOU AND OTHER CD PROPONENTS TOUT AS THE MASTERS OF THE ART OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CONSIDER THE "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THEORY" OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER "LUDICROUS" AND "NOT CREDIBLE?"

WILL YOU BE ADJUSTING YOUR VIEWS, OR WILL YOU BE ADDING CDI (Controlled Demolitions Inc.) TO THE "CONSPIRATORS" LIST?

I would like your reply on this.

Alek, if you're reading this, does Sultanist's interest in the truth strike you as "half-assed?" Does mine?

If my claim is that meteorites took down the WTC buildings, should I now be angry that the debris was not inspected for meteorite dust?

Can you name a single expert in any of the above-named professions who worked on the investigation and who is a proponent of the CD conspiracy theory?

...Speaking of which, please provide evidence that
– "The facts in this case are few," and
– "We have been shown deliberate deception."

Can you provide a list of structural engineers who agree with Jones's claims?

I don't know what's in the (unreleased WTC 7) report, but if it doesn't support CD, are you going to claim that all of the people and organizations involved are part of a conspiracy?

Does it?

Thanks Didga, but before I check out those videos, can you PLEASE confirm, to the best of your recollection, that they address the questions I've been posing in this thread:
How was the CD work accomplished? (The job of getting access and placing the explosives)
How did it remain unseen?
How did it survive?

I should expect "smart arse" answers? Are you kidding?

Have I provided evidence to refute your claim?

Alek, I ask you (and anyone else who cares to answer): what evidence would you accept as proof that the CD conspiracy claim is wrong?

Should I not take that seriously? Should I, like Zor and Roxdog, now imply that CDI may be CONSPIRATORS?

Does anyone know different?

How was the CD work accomplished?
How did it go – and remain – unseen?
How did it survive?

t's over 800 views and 95 posts later, and no one has provided a theory or a link to a resource that might lead to a plausible explanation. Does that concern anyone here?

I ask you, Mr. prosecutor, have you made your case to the jury?

Please provide me with three peices of evidence that support your claim and that are not speculation.

SUPPOSE PERSON B WAS DEAD? THEN NO CLAIM THEY MADE IN THEIR LIFETIME COULD BE REFUTED?

PLEASE try to think critically. And what's with the name calling? How old are you? Will you please stop that?

Now it's time for the $1 million challenge. Alek, YOU keep bringing it up, so I'm gonna have to ask you to tell everyone here: what is my "Worldview?"

YOU'RE SAYING A PLANE DIDN'T HIT THE SOUTH TOWER?

Please provide me with three pieces of evidence that support your case and that are not conjectural.

And while you're at it, wanna take a stab at my original questions?

Well, I never claimed steel melted at 2000 F, did somebody?

By what measurements are you judging the "no sagging?

I asked you for to name one expert from each discipline I listed who worked on the investigation and who supports the conspiracy claim. Again, please name them.

But wasn't it ME who came HERE looking for info?

Quest, you asked me three times to respond to your questions (give a guy a chance to get some dinner, willya!). And now for some reason my response is not welcome? Please explain.

Whatever caused that building to fall, is there something about that photo that does not show debris falling considerably faster than the building is collapsing?

What, specifically, do you disagree with in my response? I keep asking people to deal in specifics, and in response I get statements like "you don't know what you're talking about."

What have I "been given enough time" for, exactly?

And what does this mean, Quest: "I don't know who you are...?" I'm asking a serious question.

If I've done something that's inconsistent with that goal, please tell me. If not, then why are you so defensive about someone who's only been looking into these issues for a couple of weeks?

I asked if those videos you recommended were relevant to my questions. Are they, to the best of your recollection?

Does he present all the facts, or does he cherry-pick those that fit his claim, and twist those that don't?

Did you look at the video of the WTC 7 fire?

That's my theory, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it wasn't investigated when physical evidence was still available, and why a commission isn't investigating it now. Can you, Robo?

Where has that "investigation" led?

So why do you think CD advocates like Steven Jones don't show these views, but show the north side only, the side that the wind is coming FROM?

You said that neither you nor Jones (I don't know how you speak for him) have seen evidence of an enormous fire in WTC 7. Do you see it now?

So what WAS he doing?

Is that a statement of fact, or an opinion? Can you provide a source for it?

Now, why did that happen? Hint: what happened to the air?

Hint: what happened to the air when the 4" slab was pulverized by the 200 million pounds?

Okay, means you're getting at, but what are you assuming about motive and opportunity?

WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION?
AND WHY WOULD YOU REPEAT IT WITHOUT CHECKING IT OUT??

You certainly didn't try very hard. It took me a total of 3 minutes to find the two videos. If you're seeking the "truth," why didn't you see them long ago? Why didn't Jones?

Why didn't Jones mention that there was as much as 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the building?

And why doesn't Jones mention the reports of the senior firefighters who were on the scene?

What's your minimum standard for someone you believe to be a solid proponent of your conspiracy theory? Wouldn't honesty be a good place to start?

Zor, I have no idea what the title of your post means, but you can do better than that "garlic and grass" link, can't you?

Can you point me to what you believe is suspicious about the [Silverstein] takeover, WHICH WAS THE RESULT OF AN OPEN-BID PROCESS, as opposed to any other takeover of a huge corporation or complex?

Seriously, please name a similar-sized takeover anywhere in the world, at any time, in which simillar changes were NOT made.

What exactly is your claim or implication regarding Silverstein & co.? And what is your evidence to support that claim or implication?

Lastly, what is an "overt agenda?"

Why in the world are conspiricy theorists so unable to do the most basic fact-checking?

When are you going to buckle down and apply some intellectual rigor to this subject? Why are you so afraid of facts? Why are you so willing to believe disreputable people?

(Banned)

Manny
10th April 2006, 01:50 PM
In the same thread, Robo posts a link to a huge overhead shot of Ground Zero. For some reason I can't side-scroll on most threads there and this particular picture bleeds off the right of the page. At any rate, it's here (http://www.funnysnaps.com/bigphoto.jpg). Scroll over to the 7 WTC ruins and you can see something very interesting. It fell to the south. It didn't fall over like a tree the way the Loosers insist it "should" have, but it fell demonstrably to the south -- large pieces of the north facade of the building are piled on top of the rubble and appreciable parts of the south facade are spilled across Vesey Street.

Gravy
10th April 2006, 01:55 PM
In the same thread, Robo posts a link to a huge overhead shot of Ground Zero. For some reason I can't side-scroll on most threads there and this particular picture bleeds off the right of the page. At any rate, it's here (http://www.funnysnaps.com/bigphoto.jpg). Scroll over to the 7 WTC ruins and you can see something very interesting. It fell to the south. It didn't fall over like a tree the way the Loosers insist it "should" have, but it fell demonstrably to the south -- large pieces of the north facade of the building are piled on top of the rubble and appreciable parts of the south facade are spilled across Vesey Street.

Don't you know that's because the breeze was blowing from the north?
:D
(ETA) And look how nicely those towers just plopped down into their footprints!

Trifikas
10th April 2006, 01:56 PM
Can someone define what a "Squib" is in this case? I hear "Squibs" and I always think of the small-explosives packets they use in Special effects shots in movies, Wich barely do any damage at all. Some of them are even put on a actor (over some light-weight armor for some protection) for when they get "Shot". But Unless they're a lot bigger than what I've seen, I can't imagine them taking down a building without millions of them.


Also, if there's a good demo expert out there, would they be placed on the outside of the building even if they were bigger?

Trifikas

Gravy
10th April 2006, 02:15 PM
Scroll over to the 7 WTC ruins and you can see something very interesting. It fell to the south. It didn't fall over like a tree the way the Loosers insist it "should" have, but it fell demonstrably to the south -- large pieces of the north facade of the building are piled on top of the rubble and appreciable parts of the south facade are spilled across Vesey Street.

I posted a closeup of WTC 7 here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyctours/126573252/) The top of the picture is west.

Don't know if it's entirely conclusive, but the building certainly didn't fall to the north, and those huge pieces of wall do appear to have fallen to the south (as opposed to falling over the top of the pile from the south). Good catch, Manny.

Gravy
10th April 2006, 02:18 PM
Can someone define what a "Squib" is in this case? I hear "Squibs" and I always think of the small-explosives packets they use in Special effects shots in movies, Wich barely do any damage at all. Some of them are even put on a actor (over some light-weight armor for some protection) for when they get "Shot". But Unless they're a lot bigger than what I've seen, I can't imagine them taking down a building without millions of them.


Also, if there's a good demo expert out there, would they be placed on the outside of the building even if they were bigger?

Trifikas

The CTists aren't talking about explosives themselves, but of puffs of smoke and debris coming from the buildings that they believe are evidence of explosives inside. They don't understand anything about air pressure in a collapsing building.

The_Fire
10th April 2006, 02:24 PM
*Takes off time from a project deadlined wednesday*
In that case:
Take one paper or plastic bag.
Fill halfway up with flour.
Now have someone hold it open in the top edge (use both hands, one on each side of the bag).
now clap your hands together at high velocity, catching the bag in the middle.
You now have a kitchen/living room with a cloud of flour in it.
And a working example of airpressure Vs. Debris.
:D

Sultanist
10th April 2006, 02:29 PM
Can someone define what a "Squib" is in this case? I hear "Squibs" and I always think of the small-explosives packets they use in Special effects shots in movies, Wich barely do any damage at all. Some of them are even put on a actor (over some light-weight armor for some protection) for when they get "Shot". But Unless they're a lot bigger than what I've seen, I can't imagine them taking down a building without millions of them.

I've never heard the term applied as they're doing either.

Here's the dictionary definition...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/squib

It grates on me when someone latches onto a word and then beats it into the ground like this.
Another example would be "insurgency".

Blackwell
10th April 2006, 02:41 PM
(lots of excellent questions)
Great post, Gravy. I think I may have to create a link to that post in my sig. Thanks for attempting to keep them honest over there. (Personally, I find it too depressing to hang out on their forum for too long. I hate losing faith in my fellow human beings.)



I've never heard the term applied as they're doing either.

Here's the dictionary definition...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/squib
Yep, exactly. The term refers to the actual explosive device (I'm not even sure if that's the term actual demolitionists use.) The sad part is how the CTers see the puffs of smoke and debris ejecting from the building, and automatically connect that as "evidence" of a CD, when no proof of actual explosive devices has even been found.

WildCat
10th April 2006, 03:59 PM
Ha! That maroon Roxdog just made an animated .gif of 7 WTC falling (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2099&st=30). Slowing down one of the tapes, it shows the building falling slightly to the south, just like they say it "should have!"
He also posted pics of the Madrid Tower burning, and crowed about how it didn't collapse even though the steel was bent and warped. What he doesn't say is that the Madrid Tower was supported by concrete columns, not steel!! If that building had been supported by steel, it would have come down. Does he think that warped steel could have supported a concrete floor? Freakin' retards.

senorpogo
10th April 2006, 04:09 PM
In my free time I've been searching some academic databases for legimate articles on the WTC collpase. I was hoping to put together a bibliography of legitimate research for those who may be interested in such reading. Plus, it would be nice to have a list to refer the woos too (not that it would do any good).

Also worth noting, I'm guessing most of these won't be available for free over the internet. If you're interested in checking them out, you'll probably have to head down to your local library to find them.

Disclaimer: In no way do I want to suggest that this list is exhaustive. Also, I have not read all these articles (I've read a few and skimmed most) so I cannot comment on their individual value. The aim is just to put together a bibliography of legitimate research.


So here goes (in no particular order):


(with working link) Towers Lost and Beyond. MIT Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory, TWI Press, September 2002. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Why did the World Trade Center collapse? Simple analysis; Bazant, Z. P.; Zhou, Y. Journal Engineering Mechanics-ASCE; 2002 Vol. 128, p2-6, 5p.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

Numerical simulation of blast in the World Trade Center
Baum, Joseph D; Luo, Hong; Loehner, Rainald
AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 33rd, Reno, NV; UNITED STATES; 9-12 Jan. 1995. 1995

Issues and strategies in the DNA identification of World Trade Center victims
Theoretical Population Biology, Volume 63, Issue 3, May 2003, Pages 173-178
C. H. Brenner and B. S. Wei

http://www.cmj.hr/2003/44/3/12808716.pdf
http://imagecatinc.com/reportspubs/wtc_mceer.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf

Images of the World Trade Center site show thermal hotspots on on September 16th and 23rd, 2001. U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-01-405. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

hellaeon
10th April 2006, 04:12 PM
What sad paranoia.... I want to laugh about this but I find it terribly, terribly depressing that people can be so delusional.

I cannot agree more, I get a sense of dred. The same media they blame for the coverup is the same media where they garner their evidence.
When the media stops reporting on something that they believe boosts their claim and posts an updated more plausable explanation, its a conspiracy.
uhhh

But I must say this thread has been a fantastic resource. Im going to be making up a document detailing a lot of the questions asked and a lot of the answers from the many plausable explanations. I cant believe people cant just use critical thought and common sense but the world is an amazing place.

hellaeon
10th April 2006, 04:32 PM
great posts gravy
its freakish to see people basically assume the coverup then try to uncover the facts and twist them to their distorted view. Its absolute paranoia. These people are complete nervous wrecks.

Gravy
10th April 2006, 04:48 PM
He also posted pics of the Madrid Tower burning, and crowed about how it didn't collapse even though the steel was bent and warped. What he doesn't say is that the Madrid Tower was supported by concrete columns, not steel!! If that building had been supported by steel, it would have come down. Does he think that warped steel could have supported a concrete floor? Freakin' retards.

AND, he was reading my LC thread when I covered the Madrid fire in depth. And I'm the one who got banned for "dishonesty."

Also, the Madrid fire is a fine refutation of the CT claim that steel can't get hot enough to bend and buckle in these fires. MOST of the exterior steel columns failed entirely there.

Manny
10th April 2006, 04:54 PM
Also, the Madrid fire is a fine refutation of the CT claim that steel can't get hot enough to bend and buckle in these fires. MOST of the exterior steel columns failed entirely there.Gee, that's odd. Without the support from those outer columns one almost wonders what would have happened even to those concrete columns if there had been a 20-story building, two city blocks in wide in each direction, on top of them.

delphi_ote
10th April 2006, 05:04 PM
In my free time I've been searching some academic databases for legimate articles on the WTC collpase. I was hoping to put together a bibliography of legitimate research for those who may be interested in such reading. Plus, it would be nice to have a list to refer the woos too (not that it would do any good).
Did you see this post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130&view=findpost&p=2919452)? I link to a couple in there. I'm not sure if they're in your list or not.

Orphia Nay
10th April 2006, 05:06 PM
Great list of questions, Gravy!

CurtC - I use Firefox and the Popular Mechanics pages don't look like that for me, though I have a vague recollection that they may have done a while ago - have you downloaded the latest version/updates for Firefox? If I recall correctly there was one around a month or so ago.

senorpogo
10th April 2006, 05:09 PM
Check out the photos in figure 3 on page 85 of this document (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf).

It is clear as day that the tower didn't fall straight down like the Loosers contend.
How can they not give it up?

senorpogo
10th April 2006, 05:13 PM
Did you see this post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1130&view=findpost&p=2919452)? I link to a couple in there. I'm not sure if they're in your list or not.

A few were not in my list so I added them. Thanks.

Gravy
10th April 2006, 05:47 PM
...By me, that is.
On the political forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50561) there's a thread about Libertarian loonie Michael Bednarik running for Congress.

Someone linked to a page about Bednarik's presidential campaign here. (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=559)
Where I found this quote:
Badnarik wrote:
The United Nations HAS no authority over our national sovereignty, and I would demonstrate that to the world in a dramatic and unmistakable way. The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.

chipmunk stew
10th April 2006, 05:51 PM
Nice list, senorpogo.

Has anyone involved in these discussions thought about updating the SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup)?

A lot of the resources on senorpogo's list are not referenced, and there's at least one glaring omission in the Informational sites: http://www.911myths.com.

Also, there are a ton more pro-conspiracy sites that should be listed--the Alex Jones ones and Loose Change, for instance.

chipmunk stew
10th April 2006, 06:00 PM
I had a live, face-to-face encounter with an Inside Jobber tonight, my first in some time. A month or so ago, I would have been struck dumb by the points he was raising, but tonight I had a clear rebuttal for everything he brought up. We were on a break in class, and I was able to link to a number of websites to back up what I was saying.

He's not a hardcore CTer--he's seen Loose Change and poked around some CT websites and--he just was won over by all the specious presentations. We had to cut the discussion short when class got underway again, but I could see him wavering.

Thank you all for all your fantastic information and reasoning.

RandFan
10th April 2006, 06:03 PM
Um NobbyNobs is "one of us" his question on forum rules &c. was reposted from the LC forum, where he has just started posting.
Or did you get that and have I missed the subtly of your post? :confused:Going back and looking at his post I'm not so sure. He says "this site". If by "this site" he means LC then you are correct. So, no, I didn't get that. But it wouldn't be the first time I didn't get something. :D

Gravy
10th April 2006, 06:13 PM
I had a live, face-to-face encounter with an Inside Jobber tonight, my first in some time.
Good job, Chipmunk. I sort of envy you...I've never met one of these people.

CurtC
10th April 2006, 07:48 PM
Going back and looking at his post I'm not so sure. He says "this site". If by "this site" he means LC then you are correct. So, no, I didn't get that. But it wouldn't be the first time I didn't get something. :DBut when he said "this site," he was simply re-stating what he had posted at the LC forum.

RandFan
10th April 2006, 07:59 PM
But when he said "this site," he was simply re-stating what he had posted at the LC forum.You are absolutely right. I didn't read the post carefully. Which would perhaps be forgivable if I had taken the time to check the post after the last correction.

I stand corrected and embarrassed. I was wrong.

As Miss Emily Litella said so eloquently those many years ago, "Never Mind" --Gilda Radner (1946 - 1989)

We miss you Gilda.

Orphia Nay
10th April 2006, 08:47 PM
Has anyone involved in these discussions thought about updating the SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup)?


I've thought about it, and though I have done tons of reading and have lots of useful bookmarks, have no real new information of my own to contribute.

I would like to see Gravy's evidence from Mark Loiseaux posted there for posterity.

Delphi's work with physics should be up there (as far as I can understand it :boggled: :) ).

NobbyNobbs
10th April 2006, 09:38 PM
I think I just set a new record. I registered at Loose Change yesterday and asked some questions about their rules. Today, I am suspended until May 11, 2006 at 4:28 am.

Wow. I didn't even say anything controversial. Could someone who is still registered over there please ask why I was suspended? Thanks.

Gravy
10th April 2006, 09:48 PM
I think I just set a new record. I registered at Loose Change yesterday and asked some questions about their rules. Today, I am suspended until May 11, 2006 at 4:28 am.

Wow. I didn't even say anything controversial. Could someone who is still registered over there please ask why I was suspended? Thanks.

Until MAY? Wahahahahaha!

It's like a mandatory waiting period before a handgun purchase: they don't want you doing anything rash with that brain of yours.

What despicable cowards.

Regnad Kcin
10th April 2006, 09:48 PM
Wow. I didn't even say anything controversial. Could someone who is still registered over there please ask why I was suspended? Thanks.What, and get suspended?

Scott: It's no hassle...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: But...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: Um...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: All I'm saying...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: They're gonna get awa...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: I'm just...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: We...
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: We...
Dr. Evil: Shh! Knock, knock.
Scott: Who's there?
Dr. Evil: Shh!
Scott: Look...
Dr. Evil: Shh! Let me tell you a little story about a man named Shh! Shh! Even before you start. That was a preemptive Shh. Just know I have a whole bag of Shh with your name on it.

brodski
11th April 2006, 12:42 AM
Asking too many questions- that’s a suspending
Thinking critically- that’s a suspending
Asking "how" CD was carried out- that’s a suspending
Claiming that civilian aircraft hit the WTC- that's a suspending
Asking what you'll get suspended for- that’s a suspending

Suspending a PCT nut over a vat of their own filth- oh you'd better believe that's a suspending. In other news, Troy has now been appointed as the new admin of the loose change forum; Roxdog has lodged a complaint that this new admin is "too soft on the conspiracy-deniers".

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 01:17 AM
Asking too many questions- that’s a suspending
Thinking critically- that’s a suspending
Asking "how" CD was carried out- that’s a suspending
Claiming that civilian aircraft hit the WTC- that's a suspending
Asking what you'll get suspended for- that’s a suspending

Suspending a PCT nut over a vat of their own filth- oh you'd better believe that's a suspending. In other news, Troy has now been appointed as the new admin of the loose change forum; Roxdog has lodged a complaint that this new admin is "too soft on the conspiracy-deniers".

paddling the school canoe - oh you'd better believe that's a paddling...

those guys are really running scared over there.
nice work everyone.

Dr Adequate
11th April 2006, 01:20 AM
Nice list, senorpogo.

Has anyone involved in these discussions thought about updating the SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup)? I've added senorpogo's references.

9/11 coverup

If there are more True Believer sites that should be linked, let me know.

(Or register and edit the thing yourself, of course.)

Gravy
11th April 2006, 04:51 AM
I've added senorpogo's references.
If there are more True Believer sites that should be linked, let me know.

(Or register and edit the thing yourself, of course.)

Thanks, Dr. That's the first time I've seen that article. I'll do some updating when I can.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 05:12 AM
These guys absofreakinlutely kill me.

Over the weekend, NobbyNobbs registered here and at Loose Change. Since there had been such hubbub over bans and suspensions at LC, Nobby's first post asked about the parameters: what constituted an offense worthy of banniing?

Loose Change Mod FM258 replied (highlighting mine)

Nothing that wouldn't get you banned at any other message board.

Trolling
Abusive language
personal attacks
busting mods chops
spamming

No one here gets banned because of their views, we welcome constructive criticism and positive debate. All the theories here need to pass muster, and if they don't then they should be discredited. And that happens. What we will no longer put up with is people posting just to be disruptive.

Like other sites, we have an agenda, theres no denying that. We obviously feel that we were all lied to about the events of 9/11/01. That is why we are here, to gain support for what we hope will force a new and unbiased investigation.

So, after reading through the many threads we have, if you feel like theres no way you were lied to, and the events happen just as you were told they happened, then its best if you did not post here. We feel passionate about this mission and hope you will also. The truth needs to be known, whatever it may be.

Help us get there.
NobbyNobbs Posted on Loose Change Apr 11 2006, 04:25 AM
Well, see, this is why I asked, and it's a good thing I did, because I'm still a little confused. I've seen some people banned for being abusive towards others, calling names...but then again, others haven't been banned for the same thing. I'm wondering if there are names that are allowed and some that aren't, or if it's random, or what? Also, what do you mean by "pass muster"?
FM258
Posted: Apr 11 2006, 04:28 AM
See you in 30 days troll.

(Edited to highlight even more stupidity)

chipmunk stew
11th April 2006, 05:31 AM
These guys absofreakinlutely kill me.

Over the weekend, NobbyNobbs registered here and at Loose Change. Since there had been such hubbub over bans and suspensions at LC, Nobby's first post asked about the parameters: what constituted an offense worthy of banniing?

Loose Change Mod FM258 replied (highlighting mine)


NobbyNobbs Posted on Loose Change Apr 11 2006, 04:25 AM

FM258
Posted: Apr 11 2006, 04:28 AMSo, let's see if I have this straight:

F:)k off and die -- 48 hour suspension.
Combative style -- 7 day suspension.
What are your rules? -- 1 month suspension.
Well-reasoned rebuttals -- banned.
Moderating a PCT forum -- priceless.

kookbreaker
11th April 2006, 05:33 AM
Every time I think the Loose Change moderators can't get any lower, they grab a shovel and prove me wrong.

NobbyNobbs
11th April 2006, 05:49 AM
I'm trying to decide whether to be offended that I was suspended or to be proud that my questions are too sensible.

The amazing thing is, I honestly have a few unanswered questions about 9/11, and decided to register at both forums to get both sides of the answers and make my own decision.

What Loose Change has done is force me to get all the info from one forum, thus *highly* reducing the chances I will subscribe to their point of view on anything.

If they ban the fence-sitters, there is no hope for them. It's like the Shaker religion. It was against their tenets to procreate. And now they don't exist anymore.

Manny
11th April 2006, 06:01 AM
CTers don't want fence sitters. Fence sitters are too open to having their opinions changed. Even if they come to believe some or most of whatever the conspiracy theory happens to be, they're too liable to forcefully and convincingly debunk the parts they don't believe, perhaps becoming leaders of the movement in the process by virtue of their intellectual honestly.

They want the weak-minded. The young, the stupid, the emotional. Because more than in the theory itself, they want somebody to believe in them. In other conspiracy theories, that only involves slandering some people. In this one it means actively aiding al Qaeda. It matters not to a dedicated CTer.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 06:06 AM
I'm trying to decide whether to be offended that I was suspended or to be proud that my questions are too sensible.

The amazing thing is, I honestly have a few unanswered questions about 9/11, and decided to register at both forums to get both sides of the answers and make my own decision.

What Loose Change has done is force me to get all the info from one forum, thus *highly* reducing the chances I will subscribe to their point of view on anything.

If they ban the fence-sitters, there is no hope for them. It's like the Shaker religion. It was against their tenets to procreate. And now they don't exist anymore.

Well, Nobby, it does suck that you're suspended, but my few days with them was very depressing. I've never seen any group of people, anywhere, be so consistently wrong and so unwilling to seek the truth. They are extremely paranoid, and I don't use that word lightly. It's so sad.
I'd be glad to try to answer any 9/11 related questions you might have...I've had quite an education in the past 2 weeks. If you're skeptical about the skeptics here, the last few pages of this thread list many outside resources to find answers to 9/11 questions.

kookbreaker
11th April 2006, 06:21 AM
My imitation of how Loose Change Forum will look in short order:

CT#1: I believe explosives were used to bring down the WTC!
CT#2: Me too!
CT#3: Me Too!
Moderator: Everybody agrees! Yay!

CT#2: I believe 10 pounds of explosives were used to bring it down.
CT#1: I think it was more!
CT#3: I think it was less!
Moderator: Yay! Solid debate!

CT#3: I think the explosives were brought in a backpack!
CT#2: I think they were brought in a suitcase!
CT#1: HERETIC!
Moderator: Banned!

aggle-rithm
11th April 2006, 06:28 AM
My imitation of how Loose Change Forum will look in short order:

CT#1: I believe explosives were used to bring down the WTC!
CT#2: Me too!
CT#3: Me Too!
Moderator: Everybody agrees! Yay!

CT#2: I believe 10 pounds of explosives were used to bring it down.
CT#1: I think it was more!
CT#3: I think it was less!
Moderator: Yay! Solid debate!

CT#3: I think the explosives were brought in a backpack!
CT#2: I think they were brought in a suitcase!
CT#1: HERETIC!
Moderator: Banned!

Whew! Just in time to save Iran from US Imperialism!

hurdygurdy
11th April 2006, 06:30 AM
Hey, now The Truth has a challenge too!:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

e.t.a. Oh, they don't even have the money.

Now here’s the catch, since Hani Hanjour was on a suicide mission, you have only ONE chance to commandeer the 757 into the Pentagon and since it’s hard to simulate the feelings of knowing you are going to die soon from crashing your plane into your intended target, you have to bet the flight school $10,000 that you can do it in ONE try. Oh, and you have to be going over 500mph the entire time.

DavidJames
11th April 2006, 06:47 AM
Hey, now The Truth has a challenge too!:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

e.t.a. Oh, they don't even have the money.That thread is a perfect example of LC. One giant appeal to ignorance.

Psiload
11th April 2006, 06:50 AM
OK... I watched the entire Loose Change "documentary" all the way through, from beginning to end. I kept an open mind and I gave each point careful consideration. The "evidence" clearly points in one direction...

These people were born with their brains upside down.

Manny
11th April 2006, 06:51 AM
What a great "challenge!" 'Well, the guy puts up ten grand, see? And if he fails, he pays it. And if he passes, well, some other guy puts up ten grand, see?'

rwguinn
11th April 2006, 08:05 AM
Asking too many questions- that’s a suspending
Thinking critically- that’s a suspending
Asking "how" CD was carried out- that’s a suspending
Claiming that civilian aircraft hit the WTC- that's a suspending
Asking what you'll get suspended for- that’s a suspending

Suspending a PCT nut over a vat of their own filth- oh you'd better believe that's a suspending. In other news, Troy has now been appointed as the new admin of the loose change forum; Roxdog has lodged a complaint that this new admin is "too soft on the conspiracy-deniers".

Being know as an engineer with experience in structures:
That's a registration denied...

hurdygurdy
11th April 2006, 08:36 AM
Is there any "CTers say the darndest things" site? It might be pretty addictive stuff.

pipelineaudio
11th April 2006, 09:10 AM
eeek, now the behadings were staged

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2135

RandFan
11th April 2006, 09:34 AM
eeek, now the behadings were staged

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2135 (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2135) I posted a response there. This is reminiscent to me of the McMartin preschool trial. It's a witch hunt and mob mentality. There are no level heads there. Anything and everything goes unchallenged.

Regnad Kcin
11th April 2006, 09:55 AM
OK... I watched the entire Loose Change "documentary" all the way through, from beginning to end. I kept an open mind and I gave each point careful consideration. The "evidence" clearly points in one direction...

These people were born with their brains upside down.Hey! (http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Family_Guy_Freak-Tee-Shirt.jpg)

chipmunk stew
11th April 2006, 09:57 AM
Is there any "CTers say the darndest things" site? It might be pretty addictive stuff.Oh, that's an awesome idea! I'm going to email fstdt's webmaster and see what they say about it.

aggle-rithm
11th April 2006, 10:23 AM
"...there would not be so much blood and gore in a real beheading..."

Oh, Lord.

Can I suggest a few people we could test this on? ;)

delphi_ote
11th April 2006, 10:24 AM
I posted a response there. This is reminiscent to me of the McMartin preschool trial. It's a witch hunt and mob mentality. There are no level heads there. Anything and everything goes unchallenged.
They called you BlandFan. That's almost mayday (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54935)caliber.

pipelineaudio
11th April 2006, 10:45 AM
I posted a response there. This is reminiscent to me of the McMartin preschool trial. It's a witch hunt and mob mentality. There are no level heads there. Anything and everything goes unchallenged.

McMartin preschool is some crazy reading! Thanks!

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 10:47 AM
eeek, now the behadings were staged

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2135

I guess belittling the murders of all those people on 9/11 wasn't enough for them.

RandFan
11th April 2006, 11:05 AM
They called you BlandFan. That's almost mayday (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54935)caliber.Yeah, and how long do you think I would last if I called them loose brainers or Roxdog foaming-at-the-mouth-dog.

RandFan
11th April 2006, 11:06 AM
I posted a response there. This is reminiscent to me of the McMartin preschool trial. It's a witch hunt and mob mentality. There are no level heads there. Anything and everything goes unchallenged.And there is something wrong with you if you do challenge their pet theories.

kookbreaker
11th April 2006, 11:14 AM
And there is something wrong with you if you do challenge their pet theories.

Would someone pleeea-see think of the squibs!!!

Trust the squibs!!!

J. Arthur Hastur
11th April 2006, 11:34 AM
Loose Change is a bunch of amateur hacks, for my CT daily dosage I go to Alex Jones. Loose Change can't even hold Alex Jones' jockstrap!

Starthinker
11th April 2006, 11:43 AM
This is a long thread and I didn't read it all so forgive me if this was asked before, but why wasn't all these "loose change" theorys submitted by the defense in the Moussaoui trial? I mean, he wasn't guilty of anything if the towers were blown up by our own government.

gfunkusarelius
11th April 2006, 11:47 AM
haha, "BlandFan" is so fitting- i think most of the CTs are into it for the excitement and thus you are boring because you refuse to gobble it up. whats hilarious is after 9/11 i thought people saw that the gov't isnt nearly as organized and all-seeing as people believed, but i underestimated CTs' tenacity. they one-upped sanity by believing the gov't was really in control the whole time. it makes perfect sense they would assume the gov't was behind 9/11 too. oh well.

J. Arthur Hastur
11th April 2006, 11:49 AM
This is a long thread and I didn't read it all so forgive me if this was asked before, but why wasn't all these "loose change" theorys submitted by the defense in the Moussaoui trial? I mean, he wasn't guilty of anything if the towers were blown up by our own government.

Excellent question. Is anyone here NOT banned from Loose Change's forums to ask it?

Manny
11th April 2006, 11:52 AM
I haven't made my go-round yet. I'm collecting some of their own "evidence" to have at the ready.

As for Moussaoui, we should have a pool on what the most common answer will be. My money is on some variant of 'he's a retard and the government has the poor sap convinced he's guilty.'

J. Arthur Hastur
11th April 2006, 11:58 AM
I haven't made my go-round yet. I'm collecting some of their own "evidence" to have at the ready.

As for Moussaoui, we should have a pool on what the most common answer will be. My money is on some variant of 'he's a retard and the government has the poor sap convinced he's guilty.'

I am predicting you will be banned when you join Losse Change's forums and ask your questions. Yes, I am psychic. :D

gfunkusarelius
11th April 2006, 12:05 PM
unfortunately the reason CTs can feel self satisfied in their arguments so easily is they can simply refute any arguments with further CTs. i am certain any suggestion about moussauoi would be written off as he is a patsy that yadda yadda and the govt isnt letting the defense use any evidence blah blah.

also, you have the dreaded argument "well i am not saying the gov't did X Y or Z but they obviously are hiding something," hence, you cant really argue because they are basically saying "you might have some point about something, but overall, you have to admit something is totally wrong." thats the one i get. i had a couple of guys come into my bosses office and start jabbering about LC and he didnt know anything about it, so he just asked some very simple questions like "why would someone do that, what is the motivation" and they just said "man, no one knows, but you can tell what the govt said is lies, so we're just trying to figure it out." i didnt even enter the conversation, it was pointless.

oh and one other thing, i hate how smug and condescending CTs are. if you question their theories, they just treat you as a sad, naive sould who is being played the fool.

Oh, BTW, i left my bosses office and forwarded him a couple of succint articles debunking all the info the coworkers had just fed him just so we could have a laugh without sending them into some sort of tizzy.

chipmunk stew
11th April 2006, 12:06 PM
I haven't made my go-round yet. I'm collecting some of their own "evidence" to have at the ready.

As for Moussaoui, we should have a pool on what the most common answer will be. My money is on some variant of 'he's a retard and the government has the poor sap convinced he's guilty.'At least one person insinuated that he's probably a paid conspirator who will be living large in a mansion once they ship all the dissenters off to the FEMA camps. Apparently they timed the trial and his revelation to distract people from Charlie Sheen.

hurdygurdy
11th April 2006, 01:18 PM
eeek, now the behadings were staged

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2135

Roxdog quotes Doctor Raúl Castro Guevara, "a surgeon and forensic expert in Mexico City":

No hay manera que el individuo en el video estaba vivo y su corazon funcionando cuando le estaban cortando la cabeza. En estos casos, el corazon impela sangre con gran presion, y se corta las arterias del cuello, hay una gran cantidad de sangre que salpica por todos lados. En mi opinion el video es un fraude.
=
There is no way that the individual in the video was alive and its heart working when they were cutting the head to him. In these cases, the heart impels blood with great pressure, and it cuts the arteries of the neck, is a great amount of blood that splashes by all sides. In my opinion the video is a fraud.

Spanish is my mother tongue and I can see clearly that the spanish text is a really bad traduction of the english "traduction".

Raul Castro Guevara. Please. It sounds like the secret son of Fidel and el Ché.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 01:28 PM
Oh, that's an awesome idea! I'm going to email fstdt's webmaster and see what they say about it.

Let me know what happens. I've already started a collection of quotes.

NoZed Avenger
11th April 2006, 01:33 PM
Apparently they timed the trial and his revelation to distract people from Charlie Sheen.

I approve of any tactic to distract people from Charlie Sheen.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 01:34 PM
Excellent question. Is anyone here NOT banned from Loose Change's forums to ask it?
But the government IS the prosecution.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 01:38 PM
oh and one other thing, i hate how smug and condescending CTs are. if you question their theories, they just treat you as a sad, naive sould who is being played the fool.
That is easily combatted by asking them for evidence.

Oh, BTW, i left my bosses office and forwarded him a couple of succint articles debunking all the info the coworkers had just fed him just so we could have a laugh without sending them into some sort of tizzy.
Well done.

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 01:38 PM
Roxdog quotes Doctor Raúl Castro Guevara, "a surgeon and forensic expert in Mexico City":



Spanish is my mother tongue and I can see clearly that the spanish text is a really bad traduction of the english "traduction".

Raul Castro Guevara. Please. It sounds like the secret son of Fidel and el Ché.

So I did a quick google on "Doctor Raúl Castro Guevara" and got some 1000 hits. A quick glance revealed that the majority were about his comments on the Berg video. So I then did another search this time for "Doctor Raúl Castro Guevara" adding the limit "without the word : berg" in hopes to find some references to some of the other work of the old Doc, a list of his credentials, or maybe where he works. Basically, anything other than his comments on the Berg video. That search returned 21 hits, eight of which were unique (the other 13 being listed as very similar to the eight). In those eight, the majority of those are related to the Berg video as well.

So this guy, this doctor, is mentioned nowhere on the internet outside of his evaluation of the Berg tape.

Seems very credible.

conspiracybeliever
11th April 2006, 02:33 PM
"I certainly would need to be convinced it [the decapitation video] was authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it." ...."I would have thought that all the people in the vicinity would have been covered in blood, in a matter of seconds ... if it was genuine," said Simpson. Notably, the act's perpetrators appeared far from so. And separately Nordby observed: "I think that by the time they're ... on his head, he's already dead."


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html

Manny
11th April 2006, 02:59 PM
And of course that's relevant to exactly nothing whatsoever. Suppose, for a second, that Mr. Berg had indeed been killed by his captors or otherwise died in captivity prior to his being beheaded. That would not change that the terrorists beheaded him and circulated the film, nor that they had done so with others who were indisputably alive at the time of their beheadings.

Hey, did we ever find out whether you think that Americans have to pay income tax on American income?

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 03:04 PM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html

"Both Simpson and Nordby also noted the difficulty in providing analysis based on the video, the inherent limitations presented by this. But both also felt that Berg had seemed drugged."

They thought that the dead body seemed drugged?

Nyarlathotep
11th April 2006, 03:17 PM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html


ABMDI Board Certified fellows (http://www.slu.edu/organizations/abmdi/index.phtml?page=boardregistry)

No Jon Nordby here. The globalists must have gotten to the database.

Manny
11th April 2006, 03:23 PM
ABMDI Board Certified fellows (http://www.slu.edu/organizations/abmdi/index.phtml?page=boardregistry)

No Jon Nordby here. The globalists must have gotten to the database.That looks to be an error on the part of the article's author -- she also erred in Dr. Simpson's title. But Dr. Nordby exists and is a forensics kind of guy (http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/index.html). He appears to have been an examiner for the ABMDI at some point, among his other credits.

Nyarlathotep
11th April 2006, 03:42 PM
That looks to be an error on the part of the article's author -- she also erred in Dr. Simpson's title. But Dr. Nordby exists and is a forensics kind of guy (http://www.finalanalysisforensics.com/index.html). He appears to have been an examiner for the ABMDI at some point, among his other credits.


Fair enough, though even a non-doctor can see what is wrong with taking the comments of Simpson and Nordby to mean that the government somehow 'faked' the Berg beheading.

For the sake of argument, let's say the blood spray is all wrong. I certainly don't know enougha bout the subject to say otherwise. Nonetheless, that doesn't constitute positive evidence of the government faking the videos. It is not hard to suppose that Al Qaeda beheaded a dead body for effect. Likewise if he was 'drugged', Al Qaeda can drug a man too.

IN fact, from the context provided, there is nothing in the comments to suggest that either doctor was saying anything more than that the beheading wasn't 'as advertised'. That is, they seem to be saying that Berg was drugged or already dead by the time they got to his head. That's all well and good, but it doesn't say a single thing about WHO did the drugging or the killing, which really is the heart of the matter.

These Loose Brains nutters seem to think that any hole in the official story = The Gubbmint did it. They are rather like rabid creationists trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution that way.

Manny
11th April 2006, 03:50 PM
IN fact, from the context provided, there is nothing in the comments to suggest that either doctor was saying anything more than that the beheading wasn't 'as advertised'. That is, they seem to be saying that Berg was drugged or already dead by the time they got to his head. That's all well and good, but it doesn't say a single thing about WHO did the drugging or the killing, which really is the heart of the matter.

These Loose Brains nutters seem to think that any hole in the official story = The Gubbmint did it. They are rather like rabid creationists trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution that way.Clearly, you now join me as a "freaking dumb@ass (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2135&st=60)."

sat556
11th April 2006, 04:00 PM
It strikes me as mighty cowardly of the Loosers that they won't come on here and debate. This is a much better moderated forum that that one, where everybody, including them, can say what they think. I might have a bit more respect for their opinions if they weren't banning people left and right. Looks like they are scared of something.
Come on Loosers, get over here. It'll make you look a lot better. Either that or stop banning people for having opinions. The mods there come across like that Troy guy.

Arkan_Wolfshade
11th April 2006, 04:04 PM
It strikes me as mighty cowardly of the Loosers that they won't come on here and debate. This is a much better moderated forum that that one, where everybody, including them, can say what they think. I might have a bit more respect for their opinions if they weren't banning people left and right. Looks like they are scared of something.
Come on Loosers, get over here. It'll make you look a lot better. Either that or stop banning people for having opinions. The mods there come across like that Troy guy.

Yes, but they seem to not be able to follow the explicitly stated rules for here and/or flee when confronted by logic.

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 04:05 PM
I personally love the "dank basement with bad paint = Abu Gharib" angle. I mean, really, how could it not?

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 04:21 PM
Why is it that CTs believe that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy? Like on 9/11, it can't just be that the government shot missles at the Pentagon or that the they burned down WTC 7 for some nefarious reason or that the CIA helped the hijackers. Nope, it has to be radio controlled planes emptied of civilian passenger (who are eventually executed by government spooks) then crashed into towers filled with explosives planted by invisible Haliburton employees all while Army personel are shooting missles at the Pentagon.

And then you get a grainy video of some poor souls execution and, because of a widely available white lawn chair that looks suspiciously like another widely available white lawn chair, you deduce that US Government faked the execution in attempt to - what? - make a hated terrorist organization despised by Americans look bad.

It's guess that's bound to happen when you assume everything said by the government and media are lies. But still, you'd think the CTs would be strategic enough to pick, like, one or two conspiracies and go with them. But I guess you've got to fill the hours in your day somehow.

WildCat
11th April 2006, 04:25 PM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html
Hey Roxdog, glad you're back. Do any of you lunatic cowards want to come here and actually debate this whole thing? Obviously, dissent isn't allowed on the LC group-think board. That place resembles an old Soviet-era "re-education camp" more than anything else.

And by "debate", I don't mean posting 10,000 google hits about the same nutjob. It means you will actually have to be an advocate for your views by presenting evidence and falsifiable hypotheses.

I doubt you will, but that's ok. We'll just lurk on your little fascist forum and laugh at you.

brodski
11th April 2006, 04:26 PM
And then you get a grainy video of some poor souls execution and, because of a widely available white lawn chair that looks suspiciously like another widely available white lawn chair, you deduce that US Government faked the execution in attempt to - what? - make a hated terrorist organization despised by Americans look bad.
You don't get it, many PCTers don't even believe that terrorist organizations exist, certainly not AQ anyway. The government had to fake the execution, just t prove that there are real terrorists.

I'm waiting to be told that Te US never invaded Iraq, and all the troops that are "deployed" over there are actually manning the FEMA camps.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 04:46 PM
You don't get it, many PCTers don't even believe that terrorist organizations exist, certainly not AQ anyway. The government had to fake the execution, just t prove that there are real terrorists.

I'm waiting to be told that Te US never invaded Iraq, and all the troops that are "deployed" over there are actually manning the FEMA camps.

That's exactly correct. I was more than a little surprised to read that some of these loonies believe that all international terrorist acts have been actually been U.S. "Black Ops," and that many of them believe that al Qaeda is run by the U.S.

chipmunk stew
11th April 2006, 05:13 PM
Let me know what happens. I've already started a collection of quotes.Here's the response from the FSTDT webmaster:

From : ****** ***<fstdt at hotmail.com>
Sent : Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:44 PM
To : ****.***** at hotmail.com
Subject : RE: CTers Say the Darndest Things?




Howdy ****,

Almost no effort at all goes into maintaining this website, the hardest part about running the site is determining which quotes are good enough to be featured. All of the content that appears on the site is stored in databases, and the ASP scripts that I've written allow the site pretty much run itself.

Right now, my website focuses primarily on religious fundies, but I *do* feature things from conspiracy theorists. A few fun ones in particular are:
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=7962 (http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=7962) -- this guy is blaming hurricanes a conspiracy between Russian and Japanese mafia who are using weather-control ray guns to send hurricanes at the US. http://www.WeatherWars.info (http://www.WeatherWars.info) is an archive of weather-related conspiracy theories.

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=116 (http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=116) -- DrRoi thinks the government is tracking him over the internet to continue suppressing knowledge that Relativity is a big hoax.

http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=2687 (http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=2687) -- someone claiming that president Bush is a member of the Illuminati and a society of Satan worshippers.

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138539&tid=apeuropevenusmission&sid=37138539&mid=111 (http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138539&tid=apeuropevenusmission&sid=37138539&mid=111) -- I got this submission today, its someone who thinks Senator Miller is an extraterrestrial in league with dark forces.


It would be practically effortless to create a CTSTDT! sister project (it would take me a day or so to get everything set up and working properly). And if you like, I can create the website and host it on the FSTDT.com website (I'd only ask in return that I could display an ad on each page, because its the only way to generate revenue and pay for the costs of running my site). If you'd like to take that particular route and have me make a website, then keep in mind you don't *have* to use the FSTDT classic appearence, I can also create the website to look like anything you want, anything from the classic FSTDT look or something like a Bash.org look or anything else, it takes no effort at all to control how the appearence of the site.

The benefit of having me build the website is that you don't need to reinvent any wheels to run a CTSTDT website, you get a website to call your own for no cost, and you don't need to know any programming languages; the downside is that you can't make changes to the site directly, you'd have to make a request to me and I'd have to take care of it whenever I could.


Hope that helps :)


Best wishes,
******Awesome, right? I couldn't have asked for a better response.

Does anyone have any input for the look/feel of the site before I write back?

(edited to fix links)

hellaeon
11th April 2006, 05:30 PM
Roxdog, please stay and debate it properly without slander. Its a good read. Note here your not persecuted for your beliefs. You present your case.

Seriously your forum is exactly what you hate. In fact it reminds me of the novel 1984. Like a khult with peers who pull the strings and break the forum rules according to their agenda at the time but still keep the followers in check.

Anyway it dont matter what I think of a forum we are here to critically examine the presented case as was the OP's intent, even 30 pages later. Please stay and debate and just take peoples sometimes personal derogitory attacks with a grain of salt but more importantly, realise to critically examine what you believe. I believe your theory is incorrect. Its not a personal attack, I just dont subscribe to it. There is too many obvious flaws in it plus much more plausable explanations. Though mundane and unexciting to some, the truth is better. But your better away from the loose screw forum where anything goes and people just accept anything without skeptical analysis.

Can you seriously answer some of the questions gravy had posted? And seriously give some thought. Analyze why you come to the conclusion. I would like to know how you get past the amount of people required to be involved. I cant get past that. Just think of your workplace and how good secrets like affairs or sackings are kept quiet. Im interested in a proper discussion and how you would believe your theory despite the evidence weighing very heavily on the opposing side. Likely it may divulge to trash talk but hey its worth a start.

I am trying fellas.

Chipmunk S - thats great news and a simple concise repsonse.
I find this forum pretty easy on the eyes.
Blues and greys work well with white backgrounds.

Edit: With my work intranet and all our letters etc, we stick with arial. Its a simple neat font. :)

Gravy
11th April 2006, 05:40 PM
Roxdog... Can you seriously answer some of the questions gravy had posted? And seriously give some thought. Analyze why you come to the conclusion.

Remember, the questions I listed were in response to comments made by LCers on my thread. It's not as if I was trolling and throwing hit-and-run questions and insults around on other people's threads, as Roxdog does. When he kept doing that to me, but refused to answer my questions, I said he'd need to apologize and agree to a civil and serious discussion. He never did.

Gravy
11th April 2006, 05:49 PM
Here's the response from the FSTDT webmaster:
Awesome, right? I couldn't have asked for a better response.

[FONT=Courier New]Does anyone have any input for the look/feel of the site before I write back?

Wow, that is cool. I don't have many brilliant ideas about web design. FSTDT is a good, clean site. Sans-serif fonts might be more legible, and I'm not crazy about the green. More of a categorical menu selection at the top might be good.

WildCat
11th April 2006, 05:52 PM
Remember, the questions I listed were in response to comments made by LCers on my thread. It's not as if I was trolling and throwing hit-and-run questions and insults around on other people's threads, as Roxdog does. When he kept doing that to me, but refused to answer my questions, I said he'd need to apologize and agree to a civil and serious discussion. He never did.
He won't come here and debate because he's a coward, married to his beliefs - in fact his beliefs are his entire identity. So he just does these hit and run attacks on different forums, declares them owned and goes back to the Looser forum to brag about it.

He admitted on his "radio show" that he just goes from forum to forum dropping quotes and links from others - he doesn't actually form any of his ideas himself. Thinking critically is not his strong suit, in fact he doesn't do it at all.

Prove me wrong, Roxdog...

RandFan
11th April 2006, 08:26 PM
I have involved myself in the Berg thread and I've had some success. At least Redpillneo has agreed that the fact that Berg might have already been dead when he was decapitated doesn't prove anything.

Redpillneo seems reasonable and is friendly. Thequest is currently congenial even sending me a friendly PM.

So how about that Loose Change video? :D

I'm there folks, that's something. I'm not sure how much time I want to invest there. We'll see. The problem is that it is so much on one subject. You've got 4 planes, two towers, WTC7, and many linked events. It is a mind-field of gotchas and incongruous data. One could spend weeks perhaps months treading water.

RandFan
11th April 2006, 08:28 PM
Here's the response from the FSTDT webmaster:
Awesome, right? I couldn't have asked for a better response.

Does anyone have any input for the look/feel of the site before I write back?

(edited to fix links) Cool, I don't have any input besides go for it.

Pardalis
11th April 2006, 09:41 PM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE22Ak03.html

What the hell is that about??

So according to the CT, there is no evil in this world, only the US government?

I think Roxdog is in denial.:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

WildCat
11th April 2006, 09:44 PM
Here's the response from the FSTDT webmaster:
Awesome, right? I couldn't have asked for a better response.

Does anyone have any input for the look/feel of the site before I write back?

(edited to fix links)
My only thought is how difficult it will be to cull out the most ridiculous quotes from LC... so many contenders.

RandFan
11th April 2006, 10:33 PM
So according to the CT, there is no evil in this world, only the US government? That's what I keep thinking. Imagine what a wonderful world this will be once we kick out the evil conspirators.

senorpogo
11th April 2006, 11:45 PM
what a wonderful world this will be once we kick out the evil conspirators.

Hooray for BlandFan!!!

NobbyNobbs
12th April 2006, 05:34 AM
I haven't made my go-round yet. I'm collecting some of their own "evidence" to have at the ready.

As for Moussaoui, we should have a pool on what the most common answer will be. My money is on some variant of 'he's a retard and the government has the poor sap convinced he's guilty.'

I'll put odds on "He's an agent of the government, set up to take the fall and divert suspicion from the real culprits."

aggle-rithm
12th April 2006, 06:05 AM
Roxdog quotes Doctor Raúl Castro Guevara, "a surgeon and forensic expert in Mexico City":



There is no way that the individual in the video was alive and its heart working when they were cutting the head to him. In these cases, the heart impels blood with great pressure, and it cuts the arteries of the neck, is a great amount of blood that splashes by all sides. In my opinion the video is a fraud.







I think someone has taken the movie "Kill Bill" a little too seriously.

Belz...
12th April 2006, 07:10 AM
this guy is blaming hurricanes a conspiracy between Russian and Japanese mafia who are using weather-control ray guns to send hurricanes at the US.

Never mind the very natural reasons why there are hurricanes in the US in the first place.

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th April 2006, 07:49 AM
Never mind the very natural reasons why there are hurricanes in the US in the first place.

No, no, you don't understand. They've also traveled back in time and have been sending hurricanes at us for centuries so we'll _think_ it's natural weather. :boxedin:

hurdygurdy
12th April 2006, 08:00 AM
Jurors hear Flight 93 cockpit tape (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html)

Trifikas
12th April 2006, 08:43 AM
Hey, now The Truth has a challenge too!:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2106

e.t.a. Oh, they don't even have the money.


Sorry for hitting this particular section of the party late, but just caught up.

Just as Intelligent Designers has a list of arguments they need to abandon, The LC'ers need to drop this one. Aside from being an Argument from Incredulity, Aren't most airport runways less wide then the side of the pentagon? With four stories of building as wiggle room, since you don't care wich one you hit, It seems like if you were trained to land, even if you weren't good at it, you should be able to set up an approach to hit the pentagon.

Trif

Manny
12th April 2006, 09:43 AM
As you doubtless know, a jury is currently deciding whether Zacarias Moussaoui's guilty plea should result in a death penalty. That process involves victim impact statements and descriptions of the terrorist acts. Today the focus is on flight 93. As part of that, the government introduced evidence collected, including photographs from the crash site in Shanksville, PA.

Try not to be too shocked by this news, but the photographs indicate that a plane crashed there. A big blue plane with a red stripe and windows and all kinds of stuff.

So these photos are, of course, "magic (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2172)." As is the cockpit voice recorder,

In other depressing news, Steven Jones is getting mainstream, albeit local and Fark.com, press (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2009351) and a chance to put on his show in front of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters.

Question for the scientists: Thermite is basically aluminum metal and rust. Could it occur on its own as a reaction between rusted metal in the building and the aircraft or the towers' aluminum cladding under heat or is sulphur necessary as a catalyst?

chipmunk stew
12th April 2006, 10:10 AM
Question for the scientists: Thermite is basically aluminum metal and rust. Could it occur on its own as a reaction between rusted metal in the building and the aircraft or the towers' aluminum cladding under heat or is sulphur necessary as a catalyst?I've thought about this possibility, too, as have others. I haven't personally explored its feasibility. But according to the above-mentioned Jones, it's impossible. His proof? He melted some aluminum and poured it down a rusty piece of L-beam.

(about a third of the way down this page: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)

:dl:

NobbyNobbs
12th April 2006, 10:51 AM
Top 5 things I can't do because I've been banned from the LC site.

5) Go on the site to learn more about the CTers position.
4) Go on the site to dispute my being banned.
3) Go on the site to ask who banned me.
2) Go on the site to ask why I was banned.
1) Go on the site to check the rules to see which one I broke.

aggle-rithm
12th April 2006, 11:09 AM
I've thought about this possibility, too, as have others. I haven't personally explored its feasibility. But according to the above-mentioned Jones, it's impossible. His proof? He melted some aluminum and poured it down a rusty piece of L-beam.

(about a third of the way down this page: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)

:dl:

It must be great to live in a universe where the laws of physics are so convenient. According to the CTer's, any simple process can be extrapolated to something huge and complex, and it will behave the very same way! Hooray for crackpot science!

Manny
12th April 2006, 11:13 AM
It's actually a good thing things don't work that way, or we'd all still be paying for that "helium plus hydrogen plus compression" project I did in the 6th grade.

kookbreaker
12th April 2006, 11:17 AM
It's actually a good thing things don't work that way, or we'd all still be paying for that "helium plus hydrogen plus compression" project I did in the 6th grade.

Do I want to know?

Hellbound
12th April 2006, 12:58 PM
Thermite is basically aluminum metal and rust. Could it occur on its own as a reaction between rusted metal in the building and the aircraft or the towers' aluminum cladding under heat or is sulphur necessary as a catalyst?

You don't need sulpher. In fact, Thermite is a mixture of Aluminum powder and Iron Oxide powder. There's no chemical reaction that turns it into thermite.

Could it happen? Maybe, but doubtful. You'd have to have the rust in a powder or powder-ish form (which might happen if pieces were knocked loose as beams bent/fell), but I'm having a hard time determining how you'd get the aluminum into small enough particles.

Now after the fall, I dunno. I kinda doubt the aluminum would be powder-ized, but I'm not familiar enough with the physics of a building collapse to state one way or another.

RandFan
12th April 2006, 04:28 PM
Top 5 things I can't do because I've been banned from the LC site.

5) Go on the site to learn more about the CTers position.
4) Go on the site to dispute my being banned.
3) Go on the site to ask who banned me.
2) Go on the site to ask why I was banned.
1) Go on the site to check the rules to see which one I broke.I finally sent a PM to Killtown to ask him since hew was complaining about another site baning hem. You might want to try that. I kind of want to get banned now. Well, not really but I think I'm going to bow out. I have lots of walls in my home that I can bang my head against.

Pardalis
12th April 2006, 04:39 PM
I really think these people need professional help. I'm dead serious.

Gravy
12th April 2006, 05:10 PM
Top 5 things I can't do because I've been banned from the LC site.

5) Go on the site to learn more about the CTers position.
4) Go on the site to dispute my being banned.
3) Go on the site to ask who banned me.
2) Go on the site to ask why I was banned.
1) Go on the site to check the rules to see which one I broke.

Well, you can still read their posts. But if you don't agree with CT, they don't want you posting there. Wish I had known that. I stated in the second sentence of my thread ihat I didn't believe their theory. Someone could have stopped me right there and saved me a lot of time.

You were banned by FM258 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1565506&postcount=1169)

And I came across this quote by TheQuest, another LC mod:
Almost NO debate regarding WTC7 or the towers with the exception of the occasional Freerepublic troll. There is a reason for that. The controlled demolition evidence IS conclusive.

If we are going to enter a discussion regarding the 2nd tower strike, lets keep it friendly. No one should fear ridicule expressing their opinion.

I say as long as everyone agrees 'inside job' and controlled demolitions we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Source (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=831&view=findpost&p=2815588)
Well, I debated the "controlled demolition theory" and was banned. And I'm not part of the "Freerepublic," whatever that is.

They really need to make this policy more clear, so that people like us don't waste our time.

RandFan
12th April 2006, 05:21 PM
Currently the Quest (a mod) is calling me a monster so I guess my new found good will is wearing thin. I'm kind of tired of the roller coaster ride. I've got to bow out. There is no point there. In the end the dissenters are wrong and conventional wisdom of the site is right. I think it is possible to get through to fence sitters but it requires patience that I simply don't have.

Pardalis
12th April 2006, 05:46 PM
«freerepublic»? What is that? Never heard that one before.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me;)