Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux [Archive]

View Full Version : Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

Pages : [1] 2

Gravy

28th April 2006, 08:53 PM

Sorry for the new thread, but now you can download the higher-res Word file of my critique as a BitTorrent file. I've tested the download and it worked fine. This file is easier on the eyes, has working links where they should be, less sarcasm, and incorporates content changes suggested by JREFers. I would reformat it, but that's a big job and I'm working on a different critique for this weekend.

Those of you who know how BitTorrent works, download the torrent file by right-clicking here: http://www.prodigem.com/torrents/download/itmatters/itmatters-9-11_Loose_Change_2_Viewer_Guide.torrent, then open the torrent with your BitTorrent client to download the Word file.

If you're not familiar with BitTorrent, it's a peer-to-peer way of sharing large files that divides the bandwidth amongst user computers. When you download a file, you also are uploading bits of it that others need.

You need free BitTorrent client software to download torrent files. I use Azureus. (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=84122) There's a good FAQ for beginners here. (http://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Azureus_FAQ)

If you're using a firewall, you need to change its settings to open a port for your BitTorrent client to use, otherwise downloads are very slow. The FAQ above tells you how to do this. My download took about 4 minutes.

Suggestions for changes to the critique are always welcome. I did this thing in 6 nights and it's far from perfect.

CurtC

28th April 2006, 10:14 PM

Gravy, do you need someone to host the DOC file for you? I just think there are a small proportion of people here who would have BitTorrent. I have extra space on my server.

Gravy

29th April 2006, 12:55 AM

Gravy, do you need someone to host the DOC file for you? I just think there are a small proportion of people here who would have BitTorrent. I have extra space on my server.

That would be wonderful, CurtC. I think I'll make those formatting changes over the weekend, and let you know by PM when it's finalized.

Dr Adequate

29th April 2006, 05:16 AM

Let me know when it's hosted somewhere accessible, please.

RSLancastr

30th April 2006, 11:38 AM

Gravy, have you considered uploading a .ZIP versio of the Word Doc somewhere?

It should be considerably smaller, and so not need BitTorrent or anything similar.

Gravy

30th April 2006, 11:45 AM

Gravy, have you considered uploading a .ZIP versio of the Word Doc somewhere?

It should be considerably smaller, and so not need BitTorrent or anything similar.
It's not that much smaller zipped. Once I do some formatting I'm going to take CurtC up on his offer of hosting. The proper thing to do would have been to correctly size the graphics to begin with, but I just didn't have the time. It was a rush job. I did come up with a snazzy addition to it today, though.

Did you watch any of the video?

RSLancastr

30th April 2006, 12:04 PM

Did you watch any of the video?Sorry, which video? Loose Change?

Gravy

30th April 2006, 12:05 PM

Sorry, which video? Loose Change?
Yes.

RSLancastr

30th April 2006, 12:46 PM

I have only seen parts of it. I have to watch my blood pressure. :mad:

Hawk one

1st May 2006, 02:19 PM

You know, Robert, if it wasn't for that pages like 911myths.com already exist, I'd suggest your next project should be to go after the Loose Change people.

RSLancastr

1st May 2006, 02:21 PM

You know, Robert, if it wasn't for that pages like 911myths.com already exist, I'd suggest your next project should be to go after the Loose Change people.They're definitely a worthy target, but yes, it looks like it's already in capable hands, including those of Gravy.

Manny

2nd May 2006, 07:21 AM

hellaeon

2nd May 2006, 08:14 AM

I can host it on my bands site as a zip if you like, that way its a link you can use for future reference on a web site etc.

will be a good read - you rule mate.

kookbreaker

2nd May 2006, 12:41 PM

Your critique made it to 911 Conpsiracy Smasher blog (http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com) today.

Not the lone rather pathetic attempt at criticism. He seems to think that if he puts the word 'refute' in quotes that makes it unrefuted.

JLam

2nd May 2006, 03:21 PM

Gravy,
Excellent work. I haven't been able to read all of it, but you do such a good job carefully and methodically tearing down each argument...it's great.

Gravy

2nd May 2006, 05:33 PM

Hang on tight, G. The Loosers have discovered the first version (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3360) and want to drop you an email.

Know any psych grad students? Bet s/he could earn a PhD going through those emails.

Good! That's why I put my email on there. They know about on theUnited 93 forum, also. But guess what? No emails except from people who liked it and had suggestions for additions.
:(

Manny

2nd May 2006, 05:43 PM

Maybe that's a good sign. Even some of the Loosers are all like, "well, he's got some good points..."

Looks like the new fallback position is going to be <>popol vuh's (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3360): "So a couple of young men barely out of high school... It's not the Bible, it's an amateur film... I don't pretend to know who did it, what their motives were." Which is all a tortured way of saying, "well, we know it's full of crap but it ASKS QUESTIONS!!!!!" And that from a super-mod over there.

HidariMak

2nd May 2006, 06:12 PM

I'll be keeping an eye open for that DOC or ZIP link. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of relatively few people in my work group who doesn't believe in the various Loose Change conspiracy videos. Perhaps your document will do a better job at countering such stupidity than my attempts have.

WildCat

2nd May 2006, 06:15 PM

Gravy, that is really fantastic, incredibly well done! :clap:

kookbreaker

3rd May 2006, 08:00 AM

Hang on tight, G. The Loosers have discovered the first version (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3360) and want to drop you an email.

Interesting. I would have expected that they would have been all over this article with complaints. I would have expected it to be on page 4 by now. Instead they seem stunned and are merely making feeble objections. The usually vile complaints on 911conspiracy have been limited to a minor complaint that Gravy didn't debunk something that was nothing but allegation to begin with.

I don't get the 'vibe' at LC forum, have they been slowing down of late or something?

Manny

3rd May 2006, 08:17 AM

They have been having more and more people who have been saying things like, "well, I agree that not all the questions are answered but (fill in particular crap) is just not true." I think LC is being chipped away rather than being demolished. Gravy's piece is perfect, because it is a billion chips rather than a single blow.

Also, Dylan has basically said that he doesn't read the message board (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/04/and-if-you-dont-know-now-you-know.html). He hasn't undertaken to correct even the painfully obvious stuff like the tarp/tent. So I think his me-too corps is feeling left without a captain.

chipmunk stew

3rd May 2006, 08:40 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

3rd May 2006, 08:43 AM

I got suspended yesterday after asking a newbie to look at the PDF:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3366&view=findpost&p=4046773

Oh, the irony. Those that are claiming the truth is being covered up are taking actions to surpress views other than the one they wish to promote.

chipmunk stew

3rd May 2006, 09:01 AM

On Dylan's blog (http://http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/04/and-if-you-dont-know-now-you-know.html), he points out that Loose Change is on the front page of AOL (http://http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074909990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001).

I posted the document on the discussion board (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060428074909990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001), in a thread called "Loose Change debunked! (http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?articleId=6639&rating=1&boardId=561793&check=49ee67c92a05d6161230421ad0b6aed4f7bcb5cb&func=6&channel=News+AOL+Managed&rate_art=1;)" and then I came across this excellent list of links:

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=561793&articleId=6529&func=5&channel=News+AOL+Managed

bjb

3rd May 2006, 12:43 PM

Here's a nice link about breakaway light poles:

http://www.transpo.com/Transpo_Sheets_PDF/Pole_safe.pdf

Here's my post about it on the Loose Change forum:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3444

Kevin_Lowe

4th May 2006, 12:01 AM

I've started an account over there and I'm pointing out the obvious here and there.

There are some serious loonies over there though.

Ramooone

7th May 2006, 06:00 PM

heres some more evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon. heres the e-mail response i got back from steve riskus, he took some of the first photos of the pentagon after he watched the plane hit it

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

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

Steve

this is cross posted with the loose change thread, just figured i'd throw it in here too.

BTW good job on the new critique!

Gravy

7th May 2006, 09:00 PM

heres some more evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon. heres the e-mail response i got back from steve riskus, he took some of the first photos of the pentagon after he watched the plane hit it

this is cross posted with the loose change thread, just figured i'd throw it in here too.

BTW good job on the new critique!
Thanks for doing that Ramooone.
By the way, if some of you haven't checked the Loose Change thread, I have a new version of my critique up. The address is in my sig. It's a 5 meg .doc file.

pgwenthold

8th May 2006, 06:44 AM

I haven't had a chance to look at the new treatise yet, but was wondering, is it indexed?

Yeah, it would be a major task, but with an index, this could be a great general and easy to use source for all matters 9/11.

Just wondering...

CurtC

8th May 2006, 07:49 AM

Another question I have - what is the best format? I know Gravy considered PDF, but couldn't get the hyperlinks to work in it, so stuck with DOC. I'm not crazy about DOCs because you get all the red squiggly underlines where Word tries to correct the grammar, and I'm not crazy about PDFs for computer viewing - PDFs are good for documents that you plan to print.

Would a conversion to HTML be better? I tend to think it would, and it would make hyperlinks very straightforward.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th May 2006, 08:10 AM

hurdygurdy

8th May 2006, 09:17 AM

By the way, if some of you haven't checked the Loose Change thread, I have a new version of my critique up. The address is in my sig. It's a 5 meg .doc file.

Thanks, Gravy. I'm sharing it on Emule as well.

Gravy

8th May 2006, 11:38 AM

WildCat

8th May 2006, 06:22 PM

Ha! In this thread (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3787) chucksheen claims your paper has been debunked already... :roll:

He must have forgot to include the link! :D

jond

9th May 2006, 05:30 AM

Gravy

9th May 2006, 07:13 AM

Gravy-

Just getting through your excellent work, and I must say: you've got WAY too much time on your hands, and we're all better off for it! It's efforts like yours (and many others on this forum) that make this such an enlightening place to hang out. Thanks.
Thanks, Jond, but blame delphi, Randfan and Chipmunk Stew for all of this. In fact, here's what I wrote in one of my first posts on the subject, a month ago
The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.
Oops. Guess I failed at that!

Regnad Kcin

9th May 2006, 03:12 PM

The main thing, I think, is not to play their game and debate the minutiae. There's no need to get bogged down in details when their arguments can't meet the most general standards of fact, logic or reason.It really is remarkable.

Take the JFK murder: reasonable people can discuss the variables and entertain possibilities, what with the various players as well as the physical event itself. But alternate 9/11 theories (as of this date), in part because they suggest the largest operation of its kind, unprecedented in history, are such non-starters that the mind can only be boggled.

Blue Mountain

9th May 2006, 09:51 PM

Good idea. Also Word should do the HTML conversion w/o issue.
Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.

If you do use Word to convert the document to HTML, please find someone who can run the result through HTMLtidy to clean it up. (I could do it; I have a copy on my computer here at home.)

hellaeon

10th May 2006, 12:53 AM

CurtC

10th May 2006, 07:26 AM

Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.I'm in the process of doing a decent HTML version right now. I saved the DOC file as HTML, which as you know produces horrible results, then used a regular-expression text editor to strip out all of Word's verbose formatting, except for the hyperlinks and image tags, which I've kept. Now I'm going through and tagging Gravy's notes and his third-party quotes with separate tags, using CSS.

You can get a preview of the work in progress: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

I'll welcome any suggestions. I'm just doing the formatting, not editing any of Gravy's work.

chipmunk stew

10th May 2006, 07:51 AM

I'm in the process of doing a decent HTML version right now. I saved the DOC file as HTML, which as you know produces horrible results, then used a regular-expression text editor to strip out all of Word's verbose formatting, except for the hyperlinks and image tags, which I've kept. Now I'm going through and tagging Gravy's notes and his third-party quotes with separate tags, using CSS.

You can get a preview of the work in progress: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

I'll welcome any suggestions. I'm just doing the formatting, not editing any of Gravy's work.Nice! Are you planning on making the index navigable?

Arkan_Wolfshade

10th May 2006, 08:12 AM

Please, no! As a computer professional who lovingly crafts his HTML by hand, I know how horrible Word's HTML is. It's easily 3x - 4x more verbose than any good HTML needs to be.

If you do use Word to convert the document to HTML, please find someone who can run the result through HTMLtidy to clean it up. (I could do it; I have a copy on my computer here at home.)

I didn't say it would be elegant, just easy. :p

Manny

10th May 2006, 08:18 AM

CurtC

10th May 2006, 08:47 AM

Nice! Are you planning on making the index navigable?Yes, I think that would be a requirement. As I'm making edits, I'm preserving the index info in the text as anchors, and will have to link them later.

For whatever it's worth, the aircraft which the FAA remote-controlled in a fuel experiment was a 727, not a 720.I'm not sure whether the voice in LC says "720" or that's just in the transcript that Gravy copied, but the plane is an old 707.

rwguinn

10th May 2006, 08:52 AM

For whatever it's worth, the aircraft which the FAA remote-controlled in a fuel experiment was a 727, not a 720. I can't see the document from work, but it's pretty early in.

Also, I might put together a bit on options trading with an eye toward making that section easier to understand.

727's do not have engines on the wings....
and to make more of a point, the remote pilot was Fitz Fulton, one of the best pilots I have ever known, with many thousands of hours experience in all kinds of aircraft, including the Blackbird.
He missed the landing by quite a bit. Remote piloting is not as easy as one would think

Anders W. Bonde

10th May 2006, 09:01 AM

The B720 was a medium range version of the B707 with a slightly different wing and a slightly shorter fuselage - so if it looks like a B707 off-hand (4 wing-mounted engines), then it could very well be a B720. BTW, I'm sure that test sequence is out there on the Web somewhere...

Manny

10th May 2006, 09:01 AM

Yeah, sorry for the brain fart. I substituted the wrong discontinued Boeing jet. Seen that thing a thousand times, too.

orphia nay

12th May 2006, 11:55 PM

I'm in the process of doing a decent HTML version right now. I saved the DOC file as HTML, which as you know produces horrible results, then used a regular-expression text editor to strip out all of Word's verbose formatting, except for the hyperlinks and image tags, which I've kept. Now I'm going through and tagging Gravy's notes and his third-party quotes with separate tags, using CSS.

You can get a preview of the work in progress: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

I'll welcome any suggestions. I'm just doing the formatting, not editing any of Gravy's work.

Great work, CurtC, and of course, Gravy! The HTML version comes just at the right time - I was wanting to link to either the pdf or the doc (in another forum) but wasn't sure which one, but this is better because the links and pics both work. Many thanks.

contra

13th May 2006, 04:35 AM

Gravy

13th May 2006, 05:31 AM

Its pretty awesome :D
Its not a blow by blow counter, its sentence by sentence...

I bet they will still try to say it is fact in places. Saying you have wrong info, or it is misinformation... you know.. the usual

If you don't mind i'll post it in a few places, whenever someone brings up LC.
Thanks. Yes, please spread it around. The Loosers are working on a new "Final Cut" version, which I assume will be out before 9/11. Dylan Avery says he wants it to be "100% accurate," which I guess means he'll only use the opening and closing credits from the current version.

CptColumbo

13th May 2006, 09:58 AM

If someone wants to do a counter video, I'm available for voice over work.

Earthborn

13th May 2006, 06:52 PM

Gravy, pretty good work so far.

I suggest checking the claim that a Richard Wagner of Convar actually made the claims he made, by dropping that company's press officer (http://www.press.convar.com/pressesprecher.asp?language=1) an email. Ask whether they helped recover data from harddisks found at Ground Zero, NY after 9/11, whether a Richard Wagner actually works there and if so he said the things he supposedly said.

I'm not saying that no German today could possibly have the name "Richard Wagner" but I do find it funny that the guy has the name of a world famous composer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wagner) and that this name only appears in relation to data recovery on 9/11 conspiracy sites but not on the website of the company he supposedly works for. Sounds to me like some joker at Unknown News used a famous name to pull an obvious prank.

Blue Mountain

13th May 2006, 06:58 PM

Minor nit in an otherwise superb document: In Canada (don't know about the rest of the world) the abbreviation for kilometres per hour is km/h, not kph.

"k" is simply "kilo" and leaving out the "/" implies multiplication, not division. So kph would logically expand to "1000 units of <any word that beings with p> multiplied by one hour" ... such as "thousands of page-hours" (=10 people reading 100 pages each over 60 munites) or "thousands of phosphorus-hours" (=1 kilogram of phosphorus consumed in one hour, or 250 g/hr consumed over 4 hours, assuming you're measuring your consumption in grams.) :)

CurtC

15th May 2006, 04:38 PM

I have finished the conversion of Gravy's paper to HTML. It's at http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8 .

I just added the hyperlinked index at the front. Now I guess it's time to make updates.

Pardalis

15th May 2006, 05:14 PM

This is potent stuff! Thanks CurtC and Gravy!

orphia nay

2nd June 2006, 02:32 AM

OK, hold on to your hats...

As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for:
"gravy" AND "loose change" (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=gravy&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=loose+change&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)
produces 'about 25,200 results'.

About 6 hours ago the same search produced 'about 24,500 results'.

This thing has got legs like a millipede!

Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...

moflicky

2nd June 2006, 03:15 PM

Hey all, new to your forum.

The other night, I spent a couple hours (that I'll never get back) going through many of the pages of the previous thread on 9/11 CTs. It just amazes me how so-called critical thinkers like Alek (what a piece of work) can similtaniously believe contradicting theories without thier heads exploding.

You all showed extreme patience with guy who clearly didn't deserve it, and you should be commended.

I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.

Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:

1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.

a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?

b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.

2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.

anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work.

Kiwiwriter

2nd June 2006, 03:20 PM

It really is remarkable.

Take the JFK murder: reasonable people can discuss the variables and entertain possibilities, what with the various players as well as the physical event itself. But alternate 9/11 theories (as of this date), in part because they suggest the largest operation of its kind, unprecedented in history, are such non-starters that the mind can only be boggled.

The most annoying thing about the 9/11 theories is that SO MANY people would need to be involved in some of these plots...it simply could not be kept quiet forever. It's a simple matter of human nature.

Even guys who did the Holocaust talked about it...yes, they rationalized, evaded, sometimes lied...but in the end, they did not resile from the proven narrative...the Nazis massacred millions of people in a systematic manner. Ohlendorf, Hoess, Eichmann, all spouted their stories, and they match the evidence and the other narratives. Just like 9/11 in that regard.

Of course, deniers and CT theorists just say all the books are fakes, created at the same place. But nobody has been able to present the alternative narrative by which the fakery was done. Nobody has been able to produce an actual conspirator to admit, "Yup, I'm the guy who faked the Holocaust records," or "Yes, I'm the fella who wired the World Trade Center with C4 to blow it up."

Why not? Because they don't exist. :)

Regnad Kcin

2nd June 2006, 05:31 PM

The most annoying thing about the 9/11 theories is that SO MANY people would need to be involved in some of these plots...it simply could not be kept quiet forever. It's a simple matter of human nature...
Right.

Plus, as I've opined before, if such a massive inside job were conceived and executed in the service of the globalists' critical goals...

1) Where was a follow-up "attack" or "attacks," necessary to ensure the continued support of the American public for the present administration?

2) Would it not be, by comparison, the easiest thing in the world to plant WMD in Iraq, post-invasion?

R.Mackey

2nd June 2006, 06:01 PM

Holocaust Deniers bother me much, much more. They have a vested interest in perpetuating fascism, racism, genocide. It's not just a Conspiracy Theory, it's "denial" in the deepest sense of the word.

The Loosers are just a bunch of paranoiacs who need help.

Loosers: Thousands of people at the highest levels of fifteen governments. Explosives lying in wait for over three decades. Holograms and anti-gravity devices. Planes from secret bases. The prize, hundreds of billions in gold, wars in foreign lands, the Patriot Act, world domination. I mean, it was the perfect plan...
... and you would have gotten away with it too, except three punk kids just happened to overhear Rumsfeld mumble the wrong word at a press conference!! I mean, you can't explain that, now can you? I mean, it all just unraveled, like ripples across a pond.

Make-Believe Cabal: I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Hutch

2nd June 2006, 06:10 PM

First, welcome to the Forum, moficky; feel free to look around the other sections of the Forum; lots of good stuff here.

I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.

And that is how it goes; pin them down on one item and they squirm towards another--and another--and another. There is not enough time in the universe to pin down ecery factoid they demand, and if even one minor fact is not available (forget about the 10,000 you showed them), well, "AH HA, see, I told you." You can't win; but you might plant the seed.

Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:

1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.

a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?

b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.

2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.

Covered many, many times and the reply is always another picture or another video showing puffs of smoke and the CT'er saying "See, See??" They are a very visual species, which make me think that many of them are young, in that visual images are more important and truthful to them than dry reading and hard math.

We shall see.

Again, welcome.

XXX

2nd June 2006, 06:14 PM

Uh-oh. Better be afraid. DJ claims that he's 50% through with his "debunking" of your guide. Still can't wait to see it, if it ever shows...

CptColumbo

2nd June 2006, 06:45 PM

Will Gravy be allowed to respond on the LC forum?

XXX

2nd June 2006, 06:50 PM

I doubt it. He can't even respond to their limited "attacks" on his guide right now.

Gravy

2nd June 2006, 07:42 PM

OK, hold on to your hats...
Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...

Thanks! It's really due for an update, but I wanted to wait until this copyright stuff was resolved. I'm told by one of the sites hosting it that my critique was downloaded almost 3,000 times in a little over 3 weeks. That's only counting the .doc file downloads, not the HTML views, so that's very encouraging.

My emails have been about 80% favorable, and they come from around the world. I've had lots of people email that they saw "Loose Change" and didn't know what to think of its claims, but didn't have time to look into it themselves, and were very grateful for finding my work. Nice!

steve s

2nd June 2006, 07:49 PM

...every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

And each "What about..." becomes more and more trivial and inconsequential. So we eventually get nonsense like "What about the fact that a pentagon official canceled a flight for Sept. 11," not realizing that on any given day of the year you can always find someone somewhere in the government who canceled a flight.

...and if even one minor fact is not available (forget about the 10,000 you showed them), well, "AH HA, see, I told you."

In the mind of the CTers, if you can't refute that one minor fact, all the other stuff that you've refuted becomes valid again. Call it the Lazarus Syndrome.

Steve S.

Gravy

2nd June 2006, 08:03 PM

Will Gravy be allowed to respond on the LC forum?
No need. They aren't going to come up with much that's factually wrong. In the introduction to my critique I ask people to email me with any well-researched corrections and I'll incorporate them. AAFIK, not a single Looser has done so.

There are plenty of things that can be improved, plenty of places where I researched stuff but didn't cite references, etc.

What the Loosers don't understand is that any help they give me in improving my document does not work in their favor. I welcome their suggestions.

Manny

2nd June 2006, 08:12 PM

What the Loosers don't understand is that any help they give me in improving my document does not work in their favor. I welcome their suggestions.And that, at its core, is the difference between skeptics and the Loosers. When confronted with a factual correction, a skeptic's proper response is "Thanks! I learned something today and as a bonus you've helped me appear more credible because I've got my facts more straight. How's about a beer? If you find another error I'll buy you a nice one." A Looser calls you a shill and bans you from the forum.

ktesibios

2nd June 2006, 09:09 PM

In the mind of the CTers, if you can't refute that one minor fact, all the other stuff that you've refuted becomes valid again. Call it the Lazarus Syndrome.

Steve S.

The one minor fact is unnecessary. In conspiracy-land, a claim is never abandoned or retracted no matter what. After all, there's always a fresh supply of rubes who, in the words of Honest John Barlow, "won't know enough to do any smart checking".

Just yesterday morning I stumbled across a press release from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". It seems that they've decided that the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake and in the course of piling up irrelevancies in support, Fetzer hauled out the long-discredited "hijackers still alive" claim. These things just keep rrising, zombie-like, from their grves to eat the brains of the living.

Since the tape in question is, IIRC, audio only, it should be interesting if the "Scholars" go into any detail about why they think it's a fake. Audio recording is about the only human endeavor that I really know about on a technical level, and I've had some experience with forensic audio... ;)

kookbreaker

2nd June 2006, 09:09 PM

Uh-oh. Better be afraid. DJ claims that he's 50% through with his "debunking" of your guide. Still can't wait to see it, if it ever shows...

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

XXX

2nd June 2006, 09:12 PM

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. I actually made the exact same comparison in an earlier post, that it would probably end up like the pathetic debunking attempt of 9/11 myths.

XXX

2nd June 2006, 09:19 PM

On the subject of "debunkings", don't know if you;ve seen this one, but it's not that great either... http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/urbanlegends.html

Or this one...http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/paulboutin.html

Gravy

2nd June 2006, 09:22 PM

The one minor fact is unnecessary. In conspiracy-land, a claim is never abandoned or retracted no matter what. After all, there's always a fresh supply of rubes who, in the words of Honest John Barlow, "won't know enough to do any smart checking".

Just yesterday morning I stumbled across a press release from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". It seems that they've decided that the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake and in the course of piling up irrelevancies in support, Fetzer hauled out the long-discredited "hijackers still alive" claim. These things just keep rrising, zombie-like, from their grves to eat the brains of the living.

Since the tape in question is, IIRC, audio only, it should be interesting if the "Scholars" go into any detail about why they think it's a fake. Audio recording is about the only human endeavor that I really know about on a technical level, and I've had some experience with forensic audio... ;)
Say, how about emailing them and offering your technical expertise? Wouldn't you like to be a "Scholar for Truth?"

I also think we should start making daily "press releases."
Day 1: The "Scholars for Truth" promoted lies about 9/11 today.
Day 2: Ditto.

orphia nay

2nd June 2006, 10:43 PM

You're welcome, Gravy.

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

The site that hosts that 'debunking' has some freaked-out stuff. They host an article alleging that the Naudet brothers' 9/11 film was staged. One of my extra-curricular 'unoffical ninja' forays into the LC forum revealed links to the page, so after posting a few times there about it (in the Naudet threads in Investiagte 911), winding a few people up and getting DJLegacy to post an after-the-fact disclaimer about his own allegations, I mustered my monkeys and penguins and lobbed a poo grenade at the source.

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:

Dear Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein & Selz,

I strongly appreciate your efforts in causing the removal of footage from the Naudet Brothers' film from the abominable film "Loose Change".

I would like to draw your attention to some possibly libellous statements made about the Naudet brothers by Leslie Raphael. An essay entitled, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged" appears at the following websites, to name but two:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/911/staged.htm

I have seen links to the essay at the "Loose Change" discussion forum. As of today's date, a Google search for all words, "raphael naudet 9/11" gives 400 results, while "staged naudet 9/11" gives 890 results. (Serendipity.com's contents are advertised 'as available on CD-ROM' on the article's webpage, however, the details reveal the CD-ROM is received 'free' upon purchase of the webhost's other website on CD-ROM for US$186.00, €155.00 or £109.00.)

Many of Raphael's comments are suppositions, questions, and theories, but the article contains a number of possibly libellous statements, which I quote below.

"Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
6 February 2006
by Leslie Raphael
lesraphael@hotmail.com
Leslie Raphael, 15 Belmont Crescent, Kilmaurs, Kilmarnock KA3 2SH, UK.

"The point of the exercise is to establish that the Naudet film must have been staged by people who knew about the attacks in advance"

"I am making an accusation of complicity in mass murder, based on the few seconds of film of Flight 11 that I think prove the case."

"But there are reasons for optimism. I say the Naudet film is one of the keys to 9/11, that will expose the true perpetrators. It is not just a documentary record of a crime, but an integral part of that crime. What can we do about it? For one thing, we can call for the issuing of an international warrant for the arrest of the Naudet brothers and everyone else involved in the filming of Flight 11."

"I say that both Naudet and Hlava knew what was going to happen that morning, and were told how to film it by controllers working for one of the US intelligence agencies. Their attempts to explain how they managed to capture their films are obviously contrived, and both photographers are frauds and liars."

Although, as I pointed out, many of his/her comments are suppositions and questions, the author adds this statement that possibly negates that tenuous neutrality:

"...you have to be totally brainless not to see the pattern, but that description would suit the millions of Americans, the shame and laughing stock of the civilised world, who all along have dutifully swallowed every word of the Evil Terrorist Mastermind story, straight from a Superman comic or a Hollywood schlockbuster, because they are incapable of handling anything more complex, like the real world around them."

I would like to see action taken to remove the article from the internet, and that the author and host websites are sued for making and publishing libellous statements. I would appreciate it if you could draw Jules and Gédéon Naudet's attention to this article.

Yours faithfully,

etc.

[bolding added in this post]

Please note that proceeds from the Naudet's film have contributed millions of pounds to the firefighters' and victims' families.

WildCat

2nd June 2006, 10:57 PM

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:
Nice!

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

RandFan

2nd June 2006, 11:24 PM

I took a break from work today to lurk a bit and I've been all day looking at the screw loose change video and Gravy's file. Cool (not cool that I'm not working but screw it. My son can always go to state school).

Good luck on the debunk Loosers.

orphia nay

3rd June 2006, 02:53 AM

Nice!

Thanks very much, WildCat. That means a lot to me, especially coming from the NWO Master Conspirator. After actively debating these "troofers" nearly every day for over 6 months in a number of forums, an often thankless task, any appreciation is very welcome. Any chance of a recommendation for an official "Ninja Wave" title? :D Or do I have to wait to be banned from the LC forum? Actually, that mightn't be long, after my last posts, and the reaction to my other posts.

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Exactly. The successful legal action taken by the Naudets against the makers of "Loose Change" really boosted my spirits. My intention is to continue to seek possible sources of libel/slander and take action against it. And, of course, to keep debating, and disseminating Gravy's Critique as widely as possible. I've put the link to it in my signature in two woo forums of which I'm a member.

Shrinker

3rd June 2006, 04:30 AM

Nice!

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

I suspect this is because of a lack of damages so far. While the CT stories are widespread there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone actually doing anything about it, or changing their behaviour in any way. (It's like none of them really believe it.) Therefore, no damages. Now if the Naudets were having difficulty finding employment because of these claims, or were suffereing harrassment, then there'd be a case worth pursuing. As it stands the CTs are really just a bunch of ineffectual loudmouth cranks.

This is another reason why I think mainstream acceptance of the CTs would inflict more damage on the movement than anything else. If they ever get enough momentum to actually motivate physical action, then they'll immediately face legal scrutiny. I think many of them know this, that's why all they do is 'spread the word'.

kookbreaker

3rd June 2006, 06:31 AM

A couple of conspiracy cranks have been sued in the past. The secret service agent accused of accidently firing his carbine into JFK's skull sued the author of FATAL ERROR. But overall, the lack of naming a real conspirator is what keeps CTs safe, not their crankiness level.

Gravy

3rd June 2006, 10:39 AM

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:

Great job, Orphia!

Pardalis

3rd June 2006, 09:08 PM

I suspect this is because of a lack of damages so far. While the CT stories are widespread there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone actually doing anything about it, or changing their behaviour in any way. (It's like none of them really believe it.)

Exactly. If our democracy was so much in jeopardy, as they are saying, wouldn't they be out on the streets manifesting, everyday? Wouldn't they be demanding directly to their representatives for answers, instead of through the internet?

This is another reason why I think mainstream acceptance of the CTs would inflict more damage on the movement than anything else. If they ever get enough momentum to actually motivate physical action, then they'll immediately face legal scrutiny. I think many of them know this, that's why all they do is 'spread the word'.

Exactly (again). That's why if Avery thinks he can get LC3 to the mainstream distribution, he's up for a world of hurt. I guess he's going to learn about life the hard way...

Pardalis

3rd June 2006, 09:38 PM

Thanks very much, WildCat. That means a lot to me, especially coming from the NWO Master Conspirator. After actively debating these "troofers" nearly every day for over 6 months in a number of forums, an often thankless task, any appreciation is very welcome.

Then let me add my appreciation to the others. Nicely done.

Exactly. The successful legal action taken by the Naudets against the makers of "Loose Change" really boosted my spirits

You know how, when people talk about pollution, we often hear that nature will eventually regain control? Well, this time it's reality fighting back. When too much woo and nonsense is generated, you eventually get an equal and opposite reaction. Reality always gets the last word (let's hope).

What you did is exactly what the truthseekers should be doing if only they trully believed anything they are saying. Wich is to take action, directly forward their questions and worries to the ones concerned, and to the proper authorities. You were trully sickened by the awful and gratuitous libel that was directed at the Naudet brothers (as all of us), and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and do something about it. This is a great example of integrity.

And what do the CTs do? If they trully believed mass murder was comitted by their own government, what the H**l are they waiting for to do something about it? That's because, as Shrinker said, they know they are wrong, and they are just fondling with the idea (no matter how dangerous the idea is), and they have NO integrity.

Once again, nicely done.

Regnad Kcin

3rd June 2006, 09:54 PM

...And what do the CTs do? If they trully believed mass murder was comitted by their own government, what the H**l are they waiting for to do something about it?Well, just like asking a real, live woman out on a date is difficult, but clicking around the 'net for pics of naked models is not...

Pardalis

4th June 2006, 12:40 AM

and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and do something about it.

It should have read "and you decided you wouldn't stand for it and did something about it."

Sorry for my english.:o

orphia nay

4th June 2006, 01:37 AM

Thankyou very much, Gravy. And thankyou, Pardalis - your post brought a tear to my eye. I've been having a bad day, but both posts made me smile. I then visited the Looser Forum, and I find I can claim a small victory.

I've been following the 2 recents LC threads "Naudet brothers sue Dylan" and "Questions about the Naudet brothers" (in the "Investigate 9/11" section). In the first thread I'd posted the names of Loosers who'd said elsewhere that they'd sent emails (that may have been threatening) to the Naudets' lawyers. I'd also listed the names of people who'd expressed beliefs that the Naudets were complicit in the 'cover-up' and asked them whether Dylan had 'capitulated to conspirators'. This prompted DJLegacy2k1 to post a statement in the "Questions about the Naudet brothers" thread saying (I have to paraphrase) "we have not taken a stance". He had started the thread, posting links to the Raphael article. I quoted his statement, then quoted one of his posts made half-way through the thread where he said ~"Don't worry guys, the Naudets' reputation will be finished after this [legal action]", then I wrote: "This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".

So, links to the Raphael article have been removed from the web, as have 3 pages of speculation and malicious allegations. OK, so my victory over DJLegacy2k1 is also gone, but that's no skin off my penguins' beaks.

Gravy

4th June 2006, 04:44 AM

"This is not a stance. I repeat, this is not a stance. No siree, Bob. Nothing to see here. Move along. Let us never speak of this again". Today I find that the (3 page long) thread has been removed from the forum. The link I'd saved to it gives an error message saying, "That Topic is not in our Database, it's possible it was deleted".
Oh, I like the cut of your jib, Orphia. And the snap of your jab! I'm constantly amazed that the Loosers can make it through a day without "Darwin Awarding" themselves out of existence. Where else can you find a whole group of people who need to be reminded not to send threatening letters to lawyers? I feel like I'm watching a race of beings who have inhabited human brains but haven't found the owner's manual.

Ducky

5th June 2006, 01:13 AM

orphia nay

5th June 2006, 01:32 AM

Two words:

Google cache.

Someone should archive those threads from it.

Thanks, fowlsound. I tried that, and managed to find page 1 of the thread ("Questions about the Naudet brothers") which I've saved.

I might try some web archives next.

Cheers.

les raphael

10th June 2006, 04:53 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006
You've written to the Naudet lawyers, have you ? I beat you to it - I wrote to them the minute I heard about their action against Avery, to draw their attention to the fact that my essay had two stills from the film - were they going to sue me, too ? I haven't heard back ; have you ? As for getting in touch with the Naudets themselves, I have been writing to them and others involved in the making of their film - as well as MPs, journalists, film-makers, MI5, CIA, FBI, DoD, Bloomberg, Pfeifer, Hanlon, etc etc - for nearly four years now. If the Naudets don't know about me by now, they must be blind and deaf. So must you, because I said all this in my essay - but you seem to have some kind of problem articulating your criticisms of it, apart from the personal abuse. I have what's known as the courage of my convictions - I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets. The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed. What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ? The justification is in the essay, if you're remotely interested in reading it - and I'd advise having a copy of the DVD to hand, to see that everything I say about it is accurate. Your claim, incidentally, that the film has raised "millions of pounds" for victims' families - what's your source for that ? How much, precisely ? My understanding was that they gave the entire proceeds, bar personal expenses, to the UFA Scholarship Fund - period - but I've never seen a figure quoted. I like to get my facts right, and I'd advise you to do the same, if you want a serious discussion about this, and are capable of one. What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ? The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday, who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise. If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right. How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

Gravy

10th June 2006, 05:04 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ?
No special kind. Just a regular idiot.

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 05:13 AM

To Raphael in regards of copyright:

There is a difference between "fair use" (your two stills) and "blatant violation of copyright" (the loosers vid).
You may want to research it.
The rest is just....idiotic.

Gravy

10th June 2006, 05:34 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006

...it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

Fair enough. Let's give your masterpiece of reasoning another perusal:

How probable is it that not only did Naudet (or whoever) capture Flight 11 - as if that were not enough on its own - but that he and his brother Gédéon then went on to record the rest of that day's events ? Who else could be almost simultaneously inside the towers, out on the streets and back at Duane Street firehouse, eight blocks away, than a pair of miracle workers like these ? They even managed - by "pure accident" - to record the totally unexpected collapse of No. 7 World Trade Center, seven hours after No. 1 fell.

1 The photographer is outside, not - like most people in Manhattan at any given time - in a building (like the firehouse he was in 15 minutes before) or a vehicle (like the car he was in 5 minutes before), where filming a plane would be far more difficult.

Okay, that's plenty. I retract my previous email. Les, I'm sorry to tell you that your idiocy is at an advanced stage, and we may not have caught it in time. PM me and I'll refer you to a hospidiotce that gives great palliative care.

Seriously, Les, get some help. Medication, education, recreation: whatever helps you to think more clearly. Please.

eta: By the way, the collapse of WTC 7 had been expected for hours. You accuse others of not doing their research, but you haven't done your own.

MarkyX

10th June 2006, 05:35 AM

Well, just like asking a real, live woman out on a date is difficult, but clicking around the 'net for pics of naked models is not...

No it isn't :P

Learn to get rejected buddy!

orphia nay

10th June 2006, 05:49 AM

"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,,790864,00.html)", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.

Les,
You must have some problem recognising personal abuse. It is rampant in your post, whereas there is none in my email. I said your article was possibly libellous, which is not a criticism of you personally. Can you see the difference?

Here some examples of personal abuse:

...they must be blind and deaf. So must you...

if you want a serious discussion about this, and are capable of one

a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday

If I state what I believe, I'd be here until I die. Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. Actually, no, I'm not sorry.

It would be more expedient to state what I do not believe. I do not believe you have provided proof to back up your allegations that the Naudet brothers are liars and frauds. Questions are not evidence (as Regnad Kcin has succinctly put it in this forum).

Thankyou, The Fire, for your apt words.

chipmunk stew

10th June 2006, 06:07 AM

To Orphia Nay and others -
From : Les Raphael, Sat 10 June 2006
....
I wrote to them the minute I heard about their action against Avery, to draw their attention to the fact that my essay had two stills from the film - were they going to sue me, too ?
....
If the Naudets don't know about me by now, they must be blind and deaf. So must you, because I said all this in my essay
....
That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why.For the "and others" out there who, like me, have been blind and deaf this whole time and have no idea who this guy is or what this essay is:
http://911foreknowledge.batcave.net/

Apollyon

10th June 2006, 07:36 AM

WildCat

10th June 2006, 08:15 AM

I haven't heard back
Maybe because you're obviously a loon?

I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets.
I don't doubt that at all.

The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed.
Unfortunately your deductions were 100% wrong.

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ?
:whistling:

What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ?
"Gospel" truth? No. Most likely scenario offered by far? Absolutely!

The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ?
Short answer, yes.

I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ?
Skepticism must be accompanied by critical thinking skills, otherwise, well just look at your essay.

If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right.
And this may well be the heart of your problem - Bush Derangement Syndrom. If Bush says it's true, it must be false.

How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.
We've all spelled out why in this and several other lengthy threads. Perhaps you should read some of them.

WildCat

10th June 2006, 08:24 AM

To Les Raphael:

Have you actually done any research on the film yourself? And by this I don't mean surfing conspiracy web sites. Have you gone to NYC and talked to any of the firemen involved in the Naudet documentary? Have you obtained any of the 911 calls about the gas leak (obtainable by a FOIA request if you encounter problems)? Did you contact anyone in the FDNY about normal procedures when investigating gas leaks (maybe the street is blocked off, especially since people are entering manholes in the middle of said streets)?

This would be the least you could have done before you go off accusing the Naudet Bros. as well as the FDNY and 911 call center operators and managers of complicity in the deaths of nearly 3000 people.

delphi_ote

10th June 2006, 08:34 AM

The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday, who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise.
We believe things based on evidence. So far, your side of this argument has produced nothing even close. We're not interested in things that make us "question the official version." We're not interested in vague hints. If you're going to make these wild accusations, you need to show some evidence.

When I say "evidence," I'm not talking about five frames of a video that look weird to you. I'm not talking about quote mining from official's speeches and local news reports. I'm not talking about interviewing people who believe what you say. I'm not talking about pages and pages of raving insinuation.

Even the weak evidence that I've seen presented from your side of the argument has proven to be false over and over again. In fact, there is now an instance we suspect is an outright forgery.

How dare you come over here and claim we'll believe everything we hear when you've bought all of this nonsense hook line and sinker?

kookbreaker

10th June 2006, 08:38 AM

Regnad Kcin

10th June 2006, 09:38 AM

Well, just like asking a real, live woman out on a date is difficult, but clicking around the 'net for pics of naked models is not...No it isn't :P

Learn to get rejected buddy!???

Regnad Kcin

10th June 2006, 09:39 AM

...Questions are not evidence (as Regnad Kcin has succinctly put it in this forum)...You're very kind to cite me, however I'm not the first here to use the phrase. Can't remember who it was, unfortunately.

Regnad Kcin

10th June 2006, 09:41 AM

delphi_ote's post #99 is spot on!

CptColumbo

10th June 2006, 09:50 AM

Are you charging people to look at your essay and the frames from the Naudet film?

If not, that is a major difference between how you used footage and how Avery used the footage.

WildCat

10th June 2006, 09:52 AM

Are you charging people to look at your essay and the frames from the Naudet film?

If not, that is a major difference between how you used footage and how Avery used the footage.
Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 09:58 AM

I believe avery and co. should have studied This site (http://fermat.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/) and this site (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/student.htm#fu) before they made the "doc"......

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 10:00 AM

Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.
Yup. At least around here. If I remember correctly, in Denmark you can show 45 seconds, or the equivelant of it in frames, of any given movie (AFAIK: This may vary depending on the length of the production otherwise commercials were screwed) under the fair use cover.

ETA: This probably different in the US.

ETA: Wordsquabble. I need to reboot my brain.....

CptColumbo

10th June 2006, 10:07 AM

Either way, I think this was a case of "post and run."

delphi_ote

10th June 2006, 11:43 AM

Either way, I think this was a case of "post and run."
I say you got no respect
Respect for authority
You're just playing your dirty tricks
And then come cryin' to me
Hit and run, hit and run
It's just a hit and run
Another hit and run

or...

And I'd like to thank mister death for what he's done
Cause I got to walk away from my hit and run
Mysteries are not so empty
Cause I saw you
At my hit and run

Hey! Look! I'm doing what they call "research." :D

bob_kark

10th June 2006, 12:02 PM

or...

Hey! Look! I'm doing what they call "research." :D

Ahhh, so that's how they found out about the Spanish Bombs in the WTC... Wait, maybe this doesn't work so well.

The Clash, BTW

kevin

10th June 2006, 12:55 PM

Plus, using a still frame or 2 may well constitute "fair use", while showing video segments does not.

Depends mostly on the length and purpose of the segment. the documentary Outfoxed had no permission to use any of the video clips they showed from Fox News, but I think Fox (no matter what their public posturing is) learned from suing Al Franken that they can be laughed out of court too.

http://www.outfoxed.org/
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002023.shtml
(I haven't seen outfoxed yet so I'm not commenting on the contents, just the fact that you can use video segments under fair use, but be careful about it...)

Gravy

10th June 2006, 02:06 PM

Depends mostly on the length and purpose of the segment. the documentary Outfoxed had no permission to use any of the video clips they showed from Fox News, but I think Fox (no matter what their public posturing is) learned from suing Al Franken that they can be laughed out of court too.
I would think that the Naudets would have a much stronger case against fair use because of the unique and historic nature of their footage. It seems to me that the potential value of their footage is far greater than the potential value of any footage of FOX talking heads.

The_Fire

10th June 2006, 02:13 PM

And then there's the fact that Avery is butchering the contents beyond recognition including twisting things people are saying completely out of context. Yaknow, the Cherrypicking? It's a no-no when doing a documentary. And could cause several civil lawsuits........*Sadistic grin* I wonder......

Gravy

10th June 2006, 02:15 PM

Ahhh, so that's how they found out about the Spanish Bombs in the WTC... Wait, maybe this doesn't work so well.

The Clash, BTW
Well, I'm back to the garage with my bulls**t detector, trying to get those jail guitar doors to go clang, clang on a certain lonely mother's son.

Happy Birthday, bob_kark! I hope you get that underscorectomy you asked for!

XXX

10th June 2006, 04:44 PM

I have what's known as the courage of my convictions - I actually, genuinely believe the accusation I make against the Naudets.

Of that, I have no doubt.

The claims I made about their film were based on deduction from FACTS - like the 69 conveniences listed.

Seems more like data mining to me. Similar to the Gambler's fallacy, like if a roulette wheel came up red 10 times in a row you could look back and say that only has a 1-1024 chance of happining, so therefore the wheel must be rigged. Given that the first plane was caught on film, there will be a set of circumstances leading up to it that seem unlikely, but that doesn't mean that it was a conspiracy. Your same argument could be made against ANYONE who had caught the first plane on film.

What kind of idiot would I have to be to go around accusing folk of involvement in mass murder without some kind of justification ? The justification is in the essay, if you're remotely interested in reading it - and I'd advise having a copy of the DVD to hand, to see that everything I say about it is accurate.

I have read it. Still not convinced.

What's the brilliant analysis of the contributors to this thread - that the official version of 9/11 is the gospel truth ? The Kean Commission was right, the Warren Commission was right, all conspiracy theories are crap, and all believers in all of them are nutters ? I thought James Randi was the great sceptic ? What's he doing hosting a bunch of folk who seem to have been born yesterday,

We're not talking about all conspiracy theories, just this one. Why is it that the Warren Commission always seems to come up with these people? I don't remember anyone here saying that the official version is "gospel truth" either.

who believe politicians all tell the truth ? I haven't read anything coming from you to suggest otherwise.

I haven't read anyone here say that all politicians tell the truth. More straw man arguments. Along with the "gospel truth" comment from above, this is a common tactic amoung theorists. They make statements about how if you believe the official version you must also believe that the government never lies to us and that politicians always tell the truth, which is total BS of course.

If we're wrong, Bush and Blair must be right.

Another line that's meant to divide people rather than address the facts, similar to the lines above about "gospel truth" and politicians. Implying that if you agree with the official version then you are somehow alligned with Bush/Blair.

How would you like to spell out what you actually believe, if it's not that ? That's what my essay does - it spells out what I believe, and it explains why. If you disagree, do the same, if you want to be taken seriously.

I think people here has spelled out what they believe and why pretty damn well. I do appreciate that you have actually done that yourself. I have been working on a few 9/11 projects, maybe I will have to tackle your piece in a bit more depth.

kevin

10th June 2006, 05:11 PM

I would think that the Naudets would have a much stronger case against fair use because of the unique and historic nature of their footage. It seems to me that the potential value of their footage is far greater than the potential value of any footage of FOX talking heads.

I'm merely pointing out it is possible to use video clips under fair use. I'm not trying to claim the Loose Change people did so.

I haven't seen the loose change video with the bits in it (got way better things to do than that) but my understanding is they clipped entire segments (minutes at a time?) that still isn't under fair use.

Additionally the video clips of Fox that Outfox used were what they were commenting on. The Loose Change usage (again my understanding from not having seen it) was to support their own opinion, not criticize the film they took them from (there is also a clause in fair use for new reporting but I don't believe that would cover this either.)

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

bob_kark

10th June 2006, 05:36 PM

Well, I'm back to the garage with my bulls**t detector, trying to get those jail guitar doors to go clang, clang on a certain lonely mother's son.

Happy Birthday, bob_kark! I hope you get that underscorectomy you asked for!

Ah, I think I've figured out why they think WTC1, 2, & 7 didn't collapse due to fire. How can there be an inferno with no disco? Its just not possible people.

BTW, unfortunately there is no known cure for the underscore. Please donate now to the Hanson Underscore Home. With your help, we can make a difference.

les raphael

12th June 2006, 08:20 AM

From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
To Gravy, The Fire, kookbreaker, WildCat, chipmunk, Delphi Ote - Like I said, no arguments, just abuse, and I'm not going to dignify that kind of crap with a longer response. There was abuse in my reply only in response to yours.
I am well aware of the difference between my borrowing from the Naudets and Avery's : I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. Orphia - it would be me who got sued, not the essay. For which, by the way, refer to
spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
All previous versions are outdated - and, in some minor ways, inaccurate.
WildCat says I was accusing 911 operators and managers and the entire
FDNY of complicity - fairly typical : I did no such thing. SOME employees of
the FDNY are in on it, but not the whole department. And yes, I did contact FDNY spokesmen to confirm standard gas leak protocols - like the guy I named in my essay. As for the FOIA, that too is mentioned in the essay - I can't use it, as far as I know, because I'm not a New York resident - but the essay invites anyone who is to do it. As for research, yes I have done it - and my entire essay was written without reference to one conspiracy site - I don't recycle other people's ideas, and a lot of the sites are the rubbish you take them for. I've written hundreds of letters and e-mails over the last four years, including to the FDNY and Duane Street - as stated in the essay - which you have obviously not bothered reading.
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
XXX, "Scholar" - no, I would not be making the same accusation against
ANYONE who filmed the first plane, and the circumstances wouldn't necessarily be unlikely. I'ld have bought someone out on the street, with a camcorder - but not with firemen, not getting the impact in the middle of the picture, not carrying on and filming inside the tower, etc etc. It's pure Hollywood - they just couldn't stop themselves overdoing it. You say you're going to have another read at my piece " in more depth" - thank you - please do. You're the only sensible person in the discussion - I don't buy your arguments, but you do seem to have some. Incidentally, there's no analogy with gambling : I list 69 circumstances in the film that are both
unusual and convenient - that combination, so many times, is what makes it suspect. I mentioned JFK and other conspiracy theories because none of the
contributors have mentioned that they buy some theories but not mine -
the presumption being they don't buy any. Am I wrong ? It would be nice
to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war
criminals. Haven't seen it yet.

MikeW

12th June 2006, 08:24 AM

As for the FOIA, that too is mentioned in the essay - I can't use it, as far as I know, because I'm not a New York resident
Does that matter? I've made FOIA applications to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defence & the Air Force, & I'm in the UK...

bjb

12th June 2006, 08:40 AM

It would be nice
to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war
criminals. Haven't seen it yet.

If that's all you want, just go to the politics forum. For example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56909&highlight=bush+lies

There are actually a number of people here on the forum who believe the rest of the JREF forum members are ultra-liberal Bush haters! Only a few of us go so far as to accuse George Bush of being a war criminal, but many here feel he is breaking the law in other areas (security leaks, wiretapping). Can you tell us why so many people who dislike George Bush are so disgusted by you 9/11 conspiracy theorists? I think it's because we skeptics, conservative or liberal, don't like anyone who tries to fool us, but I'd like to hear your opinion.

60hzxtl

12th June 2006, 08:47 AM

: I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web. .

Libel is a a tough one to prove; since you have to demonstrate damages.

Not responding is hardly conclusive - what could they gain? You can sue O.J. Simpson for $40.mil, but if he hasn't got $40.mil, you don't get it.

The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them

The_Fire

12th June 2006, 09:13 AM

Raphael:
What did you expect? A pat on the back? Some sort of recognition? From the lawyers point of view you are simply not worth it. And from mine you aren't either.
But your martyr complex probably tells you differently.

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 09:15 AM

Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Someone help me out here. I thought I saw a video clip of 7 with someone saying they were afraid the building would collapse.

MikeW

12th June 2006, 09:31 AM

Someone help me out here. I thought I saw a video clip of 7 with someone saying they were afraid the building would collapse.
It's probably the one I'm hosting at 911myths, the last one on your list.

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 09:47 AM

It's probably the one I'm hosting at 911myths, the last one on your list.Yeah, in that one they talk about pulling everyone out of there, but I thought there was one that explicitly mentioned the building coming down. It may be a faulty memory.

I thought it showed some clean up crew workers, and a boom of some sort could be heard.

Kent1

12th June 2006, 09:54 AM

Yeah, in that one they talk about pulling everyone out of there, but I thought there was one that explicitly mentioned the building coming down. It may be a faulty memory.

I thought it showed some clean up crew workers, and a boom of some sort could be heard.
This one?? "Watch that building it will be coming down soon."

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv

If that link doesn't work try this....
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 10:10 AM

This one?? "Watch that building it will be coming down soon."

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv

If that link doesn't work try this....
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results That's the one.

les raphael

12th June 2006, 11:53 AM

From : Les Raphael, Monday 12 June 2006
To Orphia -
"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.
Missed this on my first reading. I'd love to know where Deans got his information, since the DVD wasn't released - and I get so tired of saying this, but "as stated in my essay" - until the day after that TV version was broadcast - the date of Deans' article. How did it raise "millions" - advance orders ? Must have been one of the biggest selling DVDs in history - where can I find that in print ? Or maybe Deans was using ESP to predict the sales. You'd think they could come up with even a rough actual figure, 3½ years later : if you can find one, I'd appreciate it - I've never been able to. You might also try digging out how much the deal was for when Gamma-Presse and then CBS acquired the rights to the Naudet footage from these living saints - in the days before the charity story turned up.
My original post was addressed "To Orphia Nay and others" - the bit about abuse was aimed at "you" plural : but you're quite right - your own post didn't contain any. Just an accusation of libel, which I deny. I know my claims are distressing to some folk - I'm not exactly living a stress-free life myself because of it - but I think we have to face the truth, however ugly it
is, and I think my claims are the truth, or at least heading towards it. I could be wrong, but after all this time, and all the messages of support I've had, I don't think I am - generally - I may have some aspects wrong. Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ? I've written several times - and they never come back as undelivered - but he won't talk. Or at the William Morris Agency - or via the lawyers - or at the address for Goldfish Films. I've tried all of them - and a PO Box address for Goldfish that vanished from the net not long after I wrote to it in September 2002 - my first attempt to confront them, with the very earliest version of my convenience list - only a couple of dozen in those days. Still enough to make the case. I don't think you'll get any more response than I've had, but if you do, let me know, and it can be discussed.
To MikeW : I think the 911 calls would be c/o the NYPD, and I don't believe
that's covered by the federal FOIA. The New York State rules are different -
and I think you do have to be a resident.
bjb : I've no idea why folk who don't like Bush hate conspiracy theorists even
more - just as I can't understand Chomsky's position - I don't know what's
wrong with the guy. What are his arguments ? 1. Too many folk involved -
it always leaks ; Northwoods didn't. (Don't tell me they didn't do it - it was
still a conspiracy, and it stayed classified and unknown for nearly 40 years).
2. The one he offered me - "they wouldn't do it." Well, who could argue with
that pearl of wisdom ? Not me, for a kick-off.
The very reasons you give - being a sceptic, and hating being fooled, are the
reasons I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. But then, as I point out in my essay -
and I'm hardly alone in saying it - the official story is a conspiracy theory.
Heading for five years later, and how many convictions do we have ? ONE -
of a guy whose claims even the judge didn't believe - but she wasn't on the
jury. Hundreds locked up in Guantanamo, four years later, nearly all of them
not charged with anything, let alone 9/11. Not a shred of evidence Saddam
had anything to do with it. Isn't there rather a gigantic hole where all these
guilty and convicted fanatical Muslim conspiracists are supposed to be ? If
they didn't do it - and, legally, to date, they didn't - who did ? When does
KSM's trial start ? Aren't any of you interested ? When do we see the 9/11
"mastermind" in the dock ? Not a whisper of a date. What's the problem -
still collecting the evidence to prove he's the mastermind ?

Regnad Kcin

12th June 2006, 11:59 AM

Mr. (R)aphael:

What do you do for a living?

RK

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:10 PM

Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ?
Here's an idea: why don't you try leaving the Naudets alone, you sad, disturbed person, and while you're at it you could do us a favor and not darken the doorway of this forum again.

As I said before, you are not thinking clearly. Please seek help.

Regnad Kcin

12th June 2006, 12:14 PM

Well, Gravy, I don't mind that he's here. Though I'll add this is not really the thread to engage him in regard to his "essay."

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:37 PM

From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ?

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7? ??

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies? ??Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because all day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? ??Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ??Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? ??Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. ?

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.* [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Sources are linked in the "Loose Change Viewer Guide" shown in my signature below.

les raphael

12th June 2006, 12:38 PM

From : Les Raphael 12 June 06
The Fire - YOU seem to think I'm worth your attention - I wish you didn't,
because you're not worth any more of mine.
I mentioned writing to the lawyers because one of your contributors seemed
to think I should be crapping myself at the thought. Sorry to disappoint you.
"The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them."
Even less does it prove I have. Let's get this clear : I didn't say the non-reply from the lawyers proved anything. It's just a fact - read into it what
you like. Meanwhile, since I'm not being sued, I'll carry on my campaign.
If I was being sued, I'd carry it on.
Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil to folk ?
Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.
For those who made the effort :
"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:46 PM

Well, Gravy, I don't mind that he's here. Though I'll add this is not really the thread to engage him in regard to his "essay."
Understood. I just get pissed off because he has harrassed the Naudets and made baseless accusations against the FDNY. He's getting a kick out of being an ass to people who risk their lives to help others. I have no patience for jerks like that.

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:47 PM

Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil to folk ?

You're one to talk about being civil, you libeling cur.

Gravy

12th June 2006, 12:51 PM

I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?
I see. You suspect they're all lying. Classic conspiracy nuttery. Perhaps there's something in the tapes from that day. Have you searched?

R.Mackey

12th June 2006, 12:55 PM

Gravy : Here's another idea - why don't you get off the forum, before I have
you barred for consistently breaking the rules on being civil to folk ?
Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.
(emphasis added) Oh, the delicious, delicious irony...

But wait, it gets better:

This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?
I'm sure you took the time to carefully read Gravy's collected commentary. It clearly states that the Fire Department "predicted" that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

You are, therefore, calling the named members of NYFD a bunch of liars.

It's bad enough that you apply a double standard to members of the forum.

Did you have any evidence worthy of discussion? All I could find was completely unsubstantiated accusations at the Naudet brothers.

CurtC

12th June 2006, 12:55 PM

This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11 2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come down ?
How many news reporters were down in the heart of the WTC complex, after both towers had collapsed, on that day? And how many firefighters there do you think stopped what they were doing to grant an interview?

Are you nuts? Wait - you don't need to answer that.

FWIW, on the evening of 9/11, when I watched WTC7 collapsing, I recall that the news people were talking about how its collapse was expected before it happened. That and detailed reports, after that day, of the people who were actually there, is as good as you're going to get.

ETA: now why don't you try to find a firefighter who says something like "gee, we were really surprised when WTC7 collapsed! Good thing we didn't have any people in there fighting those fires!

chipmunk stew

12th June 2006, 12:57 PM

I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?Did you miss this?
http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv

(also found here: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results )

Gravy

12th June 2006, 01:12 PM

From : les raphael

Exactly who "expected" No. 7 to collapse, please ? What's your source for
that ? Give me a contemporary quote, from someone speaking on the day,
or withdraw the claim.

http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v

Reporter Ashley Banfield is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 comes down in the background.

In the studio, Brian Williams says, "What we were fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We were watching #7 World Trade..."

edit: grammar

XXX

12th June 2006, 01:14 PM

Don't forget too that the fire dept made a "collapse zone" around building 7, proof that they anticipated that it would fall beforehand.

Here's another account of it, and it's not even from a Firefighter, so you don't have to just take their word for it. It's from New York magazine writer Mark Jacobson, who was there when it all went down...

"Speaking with the widows, or simply walking by a firehouse, was a teleportation back to the raw unspun brutality of the Day. This isn’t as much of a stretch as it sounds, since I was there on September 11.

I’d just walked right into what would come to be called ground zero. No one stopped me. I knew the towers had fallen, seen it on TV. Still, I didn’t expect things that big to totally disappear, as if the ground had swallowed them up.

“Where are the towers?” I asked a fireman. “Under your foot” was the reply.

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.

“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”

“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.

“Shit!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

Here's the link http://www.nymetro.com/news/features/16464/

Regnad Kcin

12th June 2006, 01:32 PM

...Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.It's a simple question. Why the evasion?

Furthermore, please climb down off the tall pony. It's unbecoming.

Regnad Kcin

12th June 2006, 01:33 PM

Understood. I just get pissed off because he has harrassed the Naudets and made baseless accusations against the FDNY. He's getting a kick out of being an ass to people who risk their lives to help others. I have no patience for jerks like that.I understand as well.

bjb

12th June 2006, 01:48 PM

Les Raphael, thank you for the resonse. I have to say that the simplest explanation for the JREF forum members rejecting the 9/11 conspiracy theory is that we have the facts on our side. You say to have researched the evidence but somehow you keep missing the information that contradicts your claims. Why is it the JREF forum members are able to find this information while you cospiracy theorists are not? This happens time and again, theory after theory getting shot down by the facts.

You might want to take some time are read Randi's commentaries about other bogus claims made by astrologers, dowsers, homeopaths, etc. I'm sure even you will be shocked by some of the stupid things people believe. But look at what these people say and do in defense of their obviously wrong ideas. Notice they claim to have all sorts of evidence, but once you look at what they have it is clear these people are severly deluded. Spirit orbs are a particularly sad example. Once you have a good idea of the routine these people follow, compare their statements to those of the conspiracy theorists. Notice any similarities?

Skeptics like me are familiar with all sorts of crazy ideas that people believe. You might want to go through the other forums and see the kind of nutcases we have to put up with. Eventually you will understand why we reject the 9/11 conspiracies; you guys rely on the same faulty belief mechanisms that perpetuate those other forms of nonsense.

Bronze Dog

12th June 2006, 02:02 PM

It's not just the craziness of an idea that catches our attention: It's the cliche manner (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-index-suggestions.html) in which some people defend an idea.

Sometimes it seems they could just fill out a form letter. (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/06/appealtoridicule-20.html)

The_Fire

12th June 2006, 02:42 PM

Shrinker

13th June 2006, 01:58 AM

Missed this on my first reading. I'd love to know where Deans got his information, since the DVD wasn't released - and I get so tired of saying this, but "as stated in my essay" - until the day after that TV version was broadcast - the date of Deans' article. How did it raise "millions" - advance orders ? Must have been one of the biggest selling DVDs in history - where can I find that in print ? Or maybe Deans was using ESP to predict the sales. You'd think they could come up with even a rough actual figure, 3½ years later : if you can find one, I'd appreciate it - I've never been able to. You might also try digging out how much the deal was for when Gamma-Presse and then CBS acquired the rights to the Naudet footage from these living saints - in the days before the charity story turned up.

Maybe the deal was for millions Les. Maybe that would explain how the Naudets had millions to give away before the DVD was released. Maybe every broadcaster who showed the film paid money for it, as is perfectly normal practice. Maybe that would explain why the Naudet's had millions to give away. The world's a pretty straightforward place when you're not trying to distort everything to fit your beliefs. As for how much money actually changed hands, well that kind of info isn't generally published about any business endeavour unless required by law. If you think the figures are incriminating, you need to show the figures. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

orphia nay

13th June 2006, 04:51 AM

From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
I am well aware of the difference between my borrowing from the Naudets and Avery's : I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web.

You invited them to sue you for breaching copyright, which you had not done, as has been explained to you already. That does not mean you have not committed libel.

Orphia - it would be me who got sued, not the essay. For which, by the way, refer to
spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
All previous versions are outdated - and, in some minor ways, inaccurate.

Why haven't you made sure these innaccurate versions haven't been removed from the web? Is it for the same reason you make inaccurate accusations about the Naudet brothers' film?
Oh, I see you 'updated' your essay after I posted the text of my email to their lawyers... is that a 'coincidence'?

It would be nice to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war criminals. Haven't seen it yet.

This is the best I can do at short notice: Blair and Bush are popularity-seekers who jump on the latest bandwagons like some others I could mention.

From : Les Raphael, Monday 12 June 2006
To Orphia -
"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.
Missed this on my first reading. I'd love to know where Deans got his information, since the DVD wasn't released - and I get so tired of saying this, but "as stated in my essay" - until the day after that TV version was broadcast - the date of Deans' article. How did it raise "millions" - advance orders ? Must have been one of the biggest selling DVDs in history - where can I find that in print ? Or maybe Deans was using ESP to predict the sales. You'd think they could come up with even a rough actual figure, 3½ years later : if you can find one, I'd appreciate it - I've never been able to. You might also try digging out how much the deal was for when Gamma-Presse and then CBS acquired the rights to the Naudet footage from these living saints - in the days before the charity story turned up.

If you'd actually read Jason Dean's article you would comprehend that the millions of pounds raised by September 2002 were from sales of the television distribution rights to networks such as CBS and the BBC, and "broadcasters around the world".

My original post was addressed "To Orphia Nay and others" - the bit about abuse was aimed at "you" plural : but you're quite right - your own post didn't contain any. Just an accusation of libel, which I deny. I know my claims are distressing to some folk - I'm not exactly living a stress-free life myself because of it - but I think we have to face the truth, however ugly it
is, and I think my claims are the truth, or at least heading towards it. I could be wrong, but after all this time, and all the messages of support I've had, I don't think I am - generally - I may have some aspects wrong.

I see you can be reasonable when confronted with the truth face-to-face. Could one 'aspect about which you may be wrong' be the fact that you have no proof of the film being 'staged'? You only have a list of coincidences about the 'miraculous' fact that they captured the plane hitting the first tower.

Have you ever wondered how many people would be up and about videotaping at 8:45am? The Naudets' had been filming firefighters (a worthy subject) for months, and fire stations (especially in one of the biggest cities in the world) would usually be busy, so it would be unlikely that they would be not doing something of filmable interest. Why not create a conspiracy theory that NO TOURISTS FILMED THE FIRST IMPACT. Who told them all to stay in bed and have a late breakfast on their holidays? Silly me, there's no bandwagon to jump on there. Wait - all the Japanese tourists permitted US tourist visas at the time were stealthy ninjas, on a mission to have a grosse matinée and suppress the troof! It makes perfect sense...

Would you think it a coincidence if the Naudets had NOT filmed the impact, despite filming for months and there being an operation attended by the brigade at the time and near the place of the impact? Would you jump on the pod/missile bandwagon and say they were part of the 'cover-up' of that issue?

Conspiracy theorists have an agenda and join the dots to suit it, at the expense of the truth, and their sanity. Face it.. you think you thrive on stress.

Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ? I've written several times - and they never come back as undelivered - but he won't talk. Or at the William Morris Agency - or via the lawyers - or at the address for Goldfish Films. I've tried all of them - and a PO Box address for Goldfish that vanished from the net not long after I wrote to it in September 2002 - my first attempt to confront them, with the very earliest version of my convenience list - only a couple of dozen in those days. Still enough to make the case. I don't think you'll get any more response than I've had, but if you do, let me know, and it can be discussed.

Why should I write to them? To dispel any doubts that they are part of a cover-up? I have no doubts. To assuade any doubts I have that they think the conspiracy theory is despicable and baseless? I have no doubts. To assuade your doubts about a cover-up? I am not your monkey. (Credit to delphi_ote for that phrase.)

From : Les Raphael 12 June 06
[...]
This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?

If firefighters or emergency personell had interrupted their duties to conduct an interview on 9/11/2001, would you dismiss it as disinformation? If a homeless bystander had expressed the same view on that day, would you believe the opinion of a non-expert?

Libel is a a tough one to prove; since you have to demonstrate damages.

Not responding is hardly conclusive - what could they gain? You can sue O.J. Simpson for $40.mil, but if he hasn't got $40.mil, you don't get it.

The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them

Yes. The fact that Leslie Raphael's article only appeared early this year indicates to me that it may not have damaged the distribution of the film's sales (and the donation of its profits to 9/11 victims' families) much, yet. Only dissuaged buyers would know whether it did for certain. It is up to the Naudets, their lawyers and the William Morris agency to identify those failed purchases, or to monitor potential and failed sales, one reason why I emailed the lawyers. (I wonder... why did it take him nearly 5 years to accuse the filmmakers of fraud?)

Leslie, you have been given an opportunity to amend or even withdraw your baseless allegations of fraudulence. A brief read of your amended article reveals to me that you are persisting with your libellous claims, and playing with fire.

Meanwhile, since I'm not being sued, I'll carry on my campaign.
If I was being sued, I'd carry it on.

Notoriety at all costs, eh?

MikeW

13th June 2006, 04:59 AM

Why not create a conspiracy theory that NO TOURISTS FILMED THE FIRST IMPACT.
Perhaps because one tourist did (see "italy indymedia org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-strike-2 avi", replacing the spaces with dots again). Presumably he was fictional/ in on it too, then?

orphia nay

13th June 2006, 05:01 AM

:o

[2 June 2006]
As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for:
"gravy" AND "loose change" (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=gravy&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=loose+change&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)
produces 'about 25,200 results'.

About 6 hours ago the same search produced 'about 24,500 results'.

Today the same search produces 'about 25,500 results'.

To the Moderators... can we split this thread from where I posted my email to the Naudets' lawyers until the previous post? With a new title (if possible):
"'Les Raphael's libel about the Naudets' 9/11 film"?

orphia nay

13th June 2006, 05:09 AM

Perhaps because one tourist did (see "italy indymedia org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-strike-2 avi", replacing the spaces with dots again). Presumably he was fictional/ in on it too, then?

Bwahahahaha!! Cheers, thanks, MikeW!

Well, Leslie?

(Bugger, there goes my neat rerail... ;))

orphia nay

13th June 2006, 11:08 PM

(I wonder... why did it take him nearly 5 years to accuse the filmmakers of fraud?)

Oops. I meant 'nearly 4 years'.

And I was not laughing at the plane crashing into the WTC. I thought it was funny that Mike popped up and instantly provided evidence of a tourist film of it, and instantly proved me wrong about my attempt at a conspiracy theory. (I must admit I added that bit to my post during my preview of it, after having a few drinks & dinner and supposedly thinking about what I'd written. And the bit about '5' years. There's a lesson in that for you, kiddies, and you too, orph.)

Mike, is that the Pavel Hlava video? (My PC can't play it because its sound card is borked.) Les Raphael also claims Hlava is a fraud without providing evidence, but instead vague coincidences and arguments from ignorance.

And no, I won't be writing to Hlava's lawyers. His footage was not the result of months of work, nor does it continue to raise money for the victims' families.

CptColumbo

14th June 2006, 11:26 PM

Orphia,

I was the last one to post in the Naudet Thread before Dylan himself shut it down. Some of the LCers were talking about how much they wanted it to go to trial so the truth could get out, some hoping it would by held in France (the Naudets' home country). For some reason they thought it would be a trial on the facts of LC. All I wrote was that only two questions would have to be asked in a trial, "Did you use the footage," and "Did you charge people to see it?" Dylan wrote something about it not being a subject [the members of the forum] should discuss. It was then removed and I was placed on suspension soon after, although I don't know if this was why I gained this badge.

This is all from memory, since it's been removed.

orphia nay

14th June 2006, 11:55 PM

Hi CptColumbo,

Do you mean the 17(?) page 'Naudet brothers sue Dylan' thread? I don't think I was the last to post there, but I know it was locked & then made a 'sticky'. The last post in it was made a few posts after I'd posted some questions to jessicajohnstone about her opinion of Dylan & the Naudets after the legal action. That thread has also now disappeared AFAIK, which is, well, interesting.

Cheers.

CptColumbo

15th June 2006, 12:13 AM

orphia nay

15th June 2006, 01:21 AM

I'm at home now, where my IP is blocked by LC, so I can't check, but was it "Questions about the Naudet Brothers", which was 3 pages long before it was deleted? They were both in the 'Investigate 9/11' forum.

Either way, we can both congratulate ourselves on helping to get heaps of the Looosers' baseless allegations removed from their forum.

I can't check now, but I think there was another thread about the Naudets at LC. I'd like to know if that has been deleted too.

P.S. Googling "Gravy" and "loose change" now gives 28,100 results!

MikeW

15th June 2006, 02:49 AM

Mike, is that the Pavel Hlava video? (My PC can't play it because its sound card is borked.) Les Raphael also claims Hlava is a fraud without providing evidence, but instead vague coincidences and arguments from ignorance.
Yes, that's the one. Of course it has to be waved away, not because there's any evidence, just because the flimsy theory falls away otherwise. Much like people respond to the Pentagon wreckage by saying "it could have been planted", for instance.

Ducky

15th June 2006, 05:54 AM

Weel, it's not that unusual for Dylan and co. to disappear those threads. I think they were informed what "libel" was and that like the copyright infringements, they were liable.

les raphael

15th June 2006, 08:43 AM

From Les Raphael
To : Orphia Nay
Just one point - my essay did not only appear earlier this year - it was first
posted in 2004, and I did not start making my accusations five years after the film came out - as I have already explained - if you'd bothered reading what I say as assiduously as you make out. Repeat : I first wrote to the
Naudets at Goldfish Films (then in Roanoke VA) in September 2002, after
the shot of the first plane was described - for the first time - as "unique,"
when the TV version of the film was shown in the UK. The DVD came out
the next day. You didn't quote the Deans article in full, and I stopped reading
that pseudo-liberal rag the Grauniad years ago. You still haven't given me a
more precise figure than "millions" - you'd think (or I would) they'd want to specify. As for getting rid of earlier versions, I've already repeatedly asked Rosalee Grable and Peter Meyer of Serendipity to get rid of their versions, but you know what folk are like.
I could go on and on tearing your feeble arguments to shreds, but I've got
better things to do with my time, frankly.
You never did establish, finally, who "expected" No. 7 to collapse. None of you lot seem to understand the word "contemporary" : if the FDNY knew
it was going to come down, you'd think - or I would - somebody might mention it to the broadcasters, and one of them might mention it during the all-day coverage the event got - and arrange better film of it coming down than we have - like a view showing the full height, and the alleged fire.
And you still haven't addressed Northwoods.
But if you do, I won't be reading it. You're in for a large shock when the
Naudets get exposed, and the whole sick project falls apart.

Regnad Kcin

15th June 2006, 08:46 AM

...Regnad Kcin : What do I do for a living ? What's it to you, pal ? That's all
the answer that gets, or deserves.
What a bunch of charmers.I see you are on line at the moment. Mine is a simple, non-threatening question. Please answer.

60hzxtl

15th June 2006, 08:47 AM

You're in for a large shock when the
Naudets get exposed, and the whole sick project falls apart.

I'll wait for the paperback. . .

bjb

15th June 2006, 09:30 AM

LesYou're in for a large shock when the
Naudets get exposed, and the whole sick project falls apart.

les raphael, I'm glad to see you're back. Could you tell us when you think the Naudet brothers will be exposed? I only want your personal opinion. Will be take a week? A month? A year?

chipmunk stew

15th June 2006, 09:37 AM

You never did establish, finally, who "expected" No. 7 to collapse. None of you lot seem to understand the word "contemporary" Did you miss this? (Again?)
http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.org/uploads/911.wtc.7.comming.down.soon.wmv

And the "alleged" fire: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

les raphael

15th June 2006, 11:22 AM

From Les Raphael 15 June 2006
I'm afraid your las vegas/staughton site froze my computer, so I can't confirm what's in it, but if it's more past-tense "predictions," my point stands
and yours fails. The prediction should have been broadcast, and there should
be more than one link proving the point. As for when the Naudets are going
to be exposed, what the hell makes you think I'd know ? Another of your
idiotic misconceptions ?
These are my last observations : I've already said none of you seem to know what the word "contemporary" means. Here's something else you seem never
to have heard of : circumstantial evidence, defined in my dictionary as "that which is not positive, or direct, evidence of a particular fact, but consists of proof of a number of other facts, the cumulative effect of which is to establish a strong presumption of the particular main fact."
That is precisely what I do in my essay : my list of 69 conveniences, and a
whole raft of other facts about the film, has a "cumulative effect" establishing a "strong presumption" of the Flight 11 shot having been set up,
and the Naudets being guilty of complicity.
This is a perfectly legitimate legal method, and circumstantial evidence was good enough to jail - for example - Imad Yarkas for 27 years, before 12 of
those were quashed two weeks ago. I admit in my essay I don't have PROOF - the only kind of evidence you seem to be familiar with, but I do
have a ton of circumstantial evidence, and that is goood enough to get the Naudets charged and convicted - some day - could be next week - could be
in ten years.
I can't take seriously folk who have failed to establish a single factual untruth in my essay, failed to fault my method, failed to justify their own claims - like the Naudet film having raised "millions" for charity or alleged predictions of WTC 7 coming down, who ignore facts that don't suit them
and who use abuse in place of rational debate. Your idea of a discussion
is having your own fatuous, uninformed prejudices confirmed and rubbishing
anyone who disagrees with them - and this little mouthful is more than any
of you remotely deserve. But I'm known for my generosity.

Regnad Kcin

15th June 2006, 11:28 AM

les raphael:

Setting aside the irellevancies in your post above, what do you do for a living?

Gravy

15th June 2006, 12:00 PM

chipmunk stew

15th June 2006, 12:03 PM

I'm afraid your las vegas/staughton site froze my computer, so I can't confirm what's in it, but if it's more past-tense "predictions," my point stands
and yours fails.It's not past-tense. Try this:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results

"Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon."

brodski

15th June 2006, 12:05 PM

It's not past-tense. Try this:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=wtc7+coming+down+soon&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&b=0&oid=f4640462a3f96296&rurl=www.911blogger.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvide o%3Fp%3Dwtc7%2Bcoming%2Bdown%2Bsoon%26sm%3DYahoo%2 521%2BSearch%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&vback=Results

"Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon."
tinfoil hat= on]
that only proves that the person who said that was in on the Controlled Demolition and was bragging about it [tinfoil hat= off]

Gravy

15th June 2006, 12:06 PM

Oh, I guess he's gone. He gets my vote as the most delusional person I've come across on the JREF forums. How sad.

brodski

15th June 2006, 12:09 PM

Oh, I guess he's gone. He gets my vote as the most delusional person I've come across on the JREF forums. How sad. did you ever meet kilk? Or Kumar? or 1inchrist?
Actually, he probably does beat Kumar.
If you didn't meet kilk, apparently he turned up at the LC forums- even THEY thought he was nuts :eek: :jaw-dropp

chipmunk stew

15th June 2006, 12:09 PM

tinfoil hat= on]
that only proves that the person who said that was in on the Controlled Demolition and was bragging about it [tinfoil hat= off]Absolutely correct. As would any predictive statement. Thus making the CD theory unassailable.

Gravy

15th June 2006, 12:10 PM

It's not past-tense. Try this:

"Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon."

When you build a time machine and take me back to 9/11 and show me that happening live, I may give you credit for it. Until then, you're just a biased, self-congratulatory turkey who isn't worthy of the work I've done.

Les Raphael June 15, 2006

Gravy

15th June 2006, 12:11 PM

did you ever meet kilk? Or Kumar? or 1inchrist?
Actually, he probably does beat Kumar.
If you didn't meet kilk, apparently he turned up at the LC forums- even THEY thought he was nuts :eek: :jaw-dropp
No, I haven't been here that long. I saw kilik's post at the LC forum the other day, and was VERY impressed.

brodski

15th June 2006, 12:15 PM

No, I haven't been here that long. I saw kilik's post at the LC forum the other day, and was VERY impressed.
yeah, that kilk is top notch crazy. He could teach the loosers thing or two about posting "evidence" which bears no relation what so ever to the point which they are attempting to make.

chipmunk stew

15th June 2006, 12:15 PM

When you build a time machine and take me back to 9/11 and show me that happening live, I may give you credit for it. Until then, you're just a biased, self-congratulatory turkey who isn't worthy of the work I've done.

Les Raphael June 15, 2006Thank you for showering me with your open-armed generosity.

Kent1

15th June 2006, 12:45 PM

Thank you for showering me with your open-armed generosity.

If you watch the CBS video of the building 7 collapse they are talking about how the firemen had stated that building 7 was going to collapse.

Its a little cut off but listen...
....that building number 7 was going to collapse...that appears to be what has happened now.

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911.wtc.7.demolition.front.wmv

Here's another video just moments after the collapse where a reporter is stating that the firemen told him that building 7 was going to collapse.

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

There's even more out there.
But I guess these are also past-tense "predictions" LOL!!

twinstead

15th June 2006, 12:49 PM

chipmunk stew

15th June 2006, 12:56 PM

I would imagine that either the firemen were in on the plot and were shouting it out for the whole world to hear, or saw something while inside WTC7 that led them to believe a collapse was imminent.

I wonder which one is more likely?Well, apparently Occam's Razor Proves 9/11 is a Conspiracy (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5618). So I'm going with evil, loud-mouthed firemen.

CptColumbo

15th June 2006, 01:11 PM

I would imagine that either the firemen were in on the plot and were shouting it out for the whole world to hear, or saw something while inside WTC7 that led them to believe a collapse was imminent.

I wonder which one is more likely?
Welcome Twistead,

Or they saw something from the outside, that would lead them to believe that the building would fall down. If I saw that building, in the condition it was in, I would not go inside it. And I have no experience as a firefighter in NYc,NY.

Overman

15th June 2006, 01:14 PM

[QUOTE=les raphael;1706293]
who ignore facts that don't suit them and who use abuse in place of rational debate. Your idea of a discussionis having your own fatuous, uninformed prejudices confirmed and rubbishing anyone who disagrees with them [QUOTE]

hmmmmm........

Let me think.........

This reminds me of someone....mabye some group.....

mabye some group who comes on here to argue with us.........

hmmmm..................;)

twinstead

15th June 2006, 01:14 PM

Welcome Twistead,

Thank you

Or they saw something from the outside, that would lead them to believe that the building would fall down. If I saw that building, in the condition it was in, I would not go inside it. And I have no experience as a firefighter in NYc,NY.

Yes, I agree the only two things that make sense. Being in on some kind of CD plot, and then bragging about it to anybody within earshot makes no sense whatsoever, at least to me.

Arkan_Wolfshade

15th June 2006, 01:23 PM

hmmmmm........

Let me think.........

This reminds me of someone....mabye some group.....

mabye some group who comes on here to argue with us.........

hmmmm..................;)

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles Mackay

Mashuna

15th June 2006, 01:23 PM

Well, apparently Occam's Razor Proves 9/11 is a Conspiracy (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5618). So I'm going with evil, loud-mouthed firemen.

That link was just painful. Watching Killtown try to use Occam's razor, but instead he just cuts himself shaving :covereyes

twinstead

15th June 2006, 01:37 PM

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles Mackay

Beware of people who think they have it all figured out
- My grandfather

bjb

15th June 2006, 01:37 PM

From Les Raphael 15 June 2006
As for when the Naudets are going to be exposed, what the hell makes you think I'd know ? Another of your idiotic misconceptions ?

Once again, thank you for your response. I asked the question because since you believe the Naudets were going to be exposed, you should have an opinion as to when that might happen. In fact, you tell us:

From Les Raphael 15 June 2006
I do have a ton of circumstantial evidence, and that is goood enough to get the Naudets charged and convicted - some day - could be next week - could be in ten years.

So your best guess is somewhere betwen a week and ten years. That's a pretty bold prediction! In my opinion, ten years come and go without anybody being charged in a 9/11 U.S. government conspiracy. Even so, the conspiracy believers will not back down at all from their beliefs.

I'm going to show a little more courage than you and make my own predictions as to what will happen to the 9/11 truth movement in the next few months. My premise is that if you give someone enough rope, they'll hang themselves:

Interest in the conspiracy theory will grow. The 5th anniversary of 9/11 is approaching, so a network news channel will produce a report on the various 9/11 conspiracy theories. I would guess that it would be CNN or another cable news network, maybe something on a network news magazine show, but I doubt there's going to be a segment of 60 Minutes devoted to this topic (it would be great if there were, though, the more attention, the better). Or, it could wind up on a smaller show like Penn & Teller's B------t series. In any case, once the story airs, the public's perception will be that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are utterly without merit (no-plane theory, thermite, where are the passangers?, etc.). Afterwards, anyone who admits to believing in the conspiracy will be laughed at in their face, much the same as with moon landing hoax believers and Holocaust deniers.

It is possible that 9-11-06 may pass without such a documentary being aired. But I really think such a report will be aired, and it will be incredibly damaging to the 9/11 truth people. Right now, you guys are screaming for attention. You'll get the attention you deserve, but when it happens, you're *not* going to like it.

bjb

15th June 2006, 02:05 PM

Darn! I should have said a *book* might come out that debunks the 9/11 conspiracies:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158816635X/104-7107782-9531930

I hope this author makes a lot of appearances on Letterman, Leno, Daily Show, etc.

MikeW

15th June 2006, 02:57 PM

I really think such a report will be aired, and it will be incredibly damaging to the 9/11 truth people. Right now, you guys are screaming for attention. You'll get the attention you deserve, but when it happens, you're *not* going to like it.
My view exactly. If amateurs can expose big chunks of these theories armed with nothing more than Google & an email client, then just think what someone with real resources can do... For instance, I have this vision of David Ray Griffin explaining to an interviewer that Waleed Al Shehri is actually alive because the BBC said so, then being confronted with the Shehri family and asked to explain that again.

delphi_ote

15th June 2006, 06:46 PM

bjb

15th June 2006, 07:23 PM

Wow. 911blogger.com claims that others knew WTC 7 was going to fall:

http://www.911blogger.com/2004/10/all-you-need-to-see-about-wtc7.html

3) just prior to WTC7 falling many were being told WTC7 was about to fall. it had been reported as on fire approximately 1-2 hours prior. people were told the building was about to fall [edited]...

Don't these Loosers even read their own propoganda? You guys can't have it both ways.

delphi_ote

15th June 2006, 07:36 PM

You guys can't have it both ways.
Yes they can. Just like Dylan is both fighting hard to defend Loose Change while bending over and doing whatever the Naudet brothers' lawyers tell him. Or the way the main stream media is totally biased, but the CTs constantly remind us how valid their arguments are when they come from a main stream media source. Or don't forget how those in the conspiracy are the dumbest, most obvious fools, but they're also capable of being anywhere at any time and doing anything, and getting it right the first time. Or the way they curse the government for cracking down on their freedom of speech while dropping anyone who isn't a believer from their forums.

Cognitive dissonance doesn't bother the conspiracy theorist. These guys are the champions of having it both ways. Hypocrisy is what they do best.

Pardalis

15th June 2006, 08:00 PM

Cognitive dissonance doesn't bother the conspiracy theorist. These guys are the champions of having it both ways. Hypocrisy is what they do best.

And whenever you mention Islamic terrorism to them, the calamities that are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, they of course acknowledge it. That's because they really have no choice, the evidence and the death toll is just astounding. But if you want to make them see that this Islamic terrorism might very well have been responsible for 9/11, they immidiately deny it and say it doesn't even exist. :boggled:

hurdygurdy

24th June 2006, 04:26 PM

Gravy, have you ever heard about this guy?

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

That site disproves next to everything in this documentry...how exactly do people still believe it?
This entire site is easily debunked and I have exchanged emails with the webmaster and completely stumpped him. Basically, it's pretty easy to discount this whole site by the following passage:

Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama Bin Laden, claimed responsibility for the attacks. They said they were acting in accordance with the 1998 fatwa against the United States. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Responsibility)

A more detailed look at bin Laden's and al Qaeda's claims of responsibility is here (http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html)

He "proves" Bin Laden pulled off 9/11 by citing Wikipedia and 911myths. Clearly, there is no evidence the video they are using is authentic other than the Government's official stories about it.

Additionally, it is a fact that the hijackers never boarded the planes, or at least some of them since they are still alive (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-15%2CGGLJ%3Aen&q=hijackers+still+alive+911&btnG=Search). So if "Al Qaeda" didn't pull off 9/11, who did? Basically, this whole site echoes the "official" story by simply citing it where Loose Change and others veer off into provable facts.

There is no evidence 19 Arab "Jihadists" boarded the 9/11 planes. Even on the FBI's website, Osama is not listed with the crime of 9/11 (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm) because of lack of evidence in his involvement.

The "viewers guide" like the Offical fiction are easily taken apart by the mere fact that it is not conclusive that 19 Arab "Jihadist" connected to Osama Bin Laden ever really got on the planes on 9/11. It is the Achilles heel of the whole deception.

(bolding mine)

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6806&st=30

gumboot

25th June 2006, 12:52 AM

I guess the webmaster was so stumped they didn't even realise it...

-Andrew

Gravy

25th June 2006, 01:35 AM

Gravy, have you ever heard about this guy?

(bolding mine)

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6806&st=30
Just saw this. I have no idea what it's about. For one thing, I don't have a website. There was one guy a while ago who emailed me with the claim that bin Laden never admitted to being involved with al Qaeda or 9/11, and I gave him a whole bunch of specific examples of how he was wrong. Doesn't sound like the same guy, though.

Occasionally I enter someone's email address into my spam filter because they keep sending insane rants, but that's rare.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 02:53 AM

Ah, NesNYC is the guy who claimed in emails to me that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is a threat manufactured by the U.S. He took me to task for my "Loose Change" critique, which he hadn't read. I'll contact him and ask him to continue this line of reasoning publicly. Here are the email exchanges we had. They may be of interest to people here.

----- Original Message -----
From: Nestor
To: itmatters@mail.com
Subject: Re: 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:30:41 -0400

I just needed to look at one item and see if you were really informed on the topic. You weren't. This is in reference to your conclusion, sourcing Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Responsibility , (echoing known government propaganda) as conclusive proof that Bin Laden was complicit of this crime.

But please look at the following release that aired on BBC a while ago, it's called "The power of Nightmares <http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000753.html " and spells out how Bin Laden is a manufactured US boogeyman.

But all you have to do to prove it to yourself quickly is to try and find any mainstream media article that mentions "Al Qaeda" and is dated earlier than 2000. You can't and you know why? Because the name "Al Qaeda" was the name given to an organization and an association given to Bin Laden in order to try him in absentia in US federal court after the Embassy bombings he was supposedly the master mind.

So a logical conclusion, if there is no Al Qaeda, who really hit the buildings?

Now, if you really want to look at constructive criticism of Loose Change, take a look here:
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html "Loose Change" An analysis by Michael B. <http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html Green

- and -

The <http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html 9-11Research Companion to LOOSE CHANGE <http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html 2ND EDITION

Decide for yourself.

Best regards,

Nestor Delgado Brooklyn, NY
My reply:
Thank you for your email, Nestor.

I’m as much of a neocon-hater as anyone, but the BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares” is not the world’s most accurate source of information. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but I remember that it makes some really egregious errors, such as claiming that there was no massive Soviet arms buildup in the 1970s.

Speaking of accuracy, what specifically is incorrect in the Wikipedia entry on bin Laden or al Qaeda? It’s important to me that I’m citing accurate sources. And if you do see errors there, why not make the necessary corrections?

I’m the first to admit that I’m no expert on al Qaeda, but I would like to correct you on a few points.

You incorrectly claim that the name al Qaeda (or any variant spellings) originated with the U.S. government’s trial of the African embassy bombings. That trial made al Qaeda a household name, but its first known mention in print, “Al Qaeda al Sulbah,” was by one of its co-founders, Abdullah Azzam, on page 46 of the April, 1988 issue of “Al Jihad.”

The first reference to al Qaeda in the mainstream U.S. media was on 14 August 1996, in a UPI article that referenced a U.S. State Department Fact Sheet issued that day:
“Earlier, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin drew on his family’s wealth ‘plus donations received from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region’ to organize the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida.” The full text of that State Department memo is here:
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd4_8-15.htm

The FBI began its criminal investigation into al Qaeda’s activities in the U.S. in 1996, based upon information from an informant who had been brought in by the CIA.

On August 24, 1998, MSNBC ran a story about bin Laden’s ties to the CIA which mentions al Qaeda:
“In fact, while he returned to his family’s construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.”

The New York Times first mentioned “al-Qaeda” four days later, on 8/28/98.

Then there were the September, 1998 U.S. arrest warrants and November, 1998 indictments which mention al Qaeda’s history extensively. http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/usa-v-qaeda.htm
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/usbinladen-1a.pdf

Finally, as for al Qaeda not existing, someone should really tell Osama bin Laden, because he uses that name all the time. Al Jazeera reported in 2001 that bin Ladin spoke about the origin of the name:
“We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda [”the base”]. And the name stayed.” http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10207

The bin Laden statement that immediately came to mind when I read your email was his famous “Your security” video message of November, 2004, in which he mentions al Qaeda as a real organization eight times. You can watch that video, and read al Jazeera’s translation, here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

I hope this information is of some help to you. I’m confident that if you give my “Loose Change” analysis a try, you’ll find it far more thorough and accurate than the sources you mentioned.

Regards,
Mark Roberts

Nestor’s reply

Okay, I think you misunderstood what "The power of nightmares
<http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares " had to say about the Soviets. There were no claims that the soviets didn't have massive arms build up, only that it might have been exaggerated by those in Washington that wanted to spend money on an American counter to this perceived threat. But looking at the situation realistically, we know for a fact that the Soviet regime by the 70's was in decline and decay, how then did the Straussian ideologues < :2006-15,GGLJ:en&q=leo+strauss manage to conclude that the military was devising some extra ordinary capabilities when the nation could hardly feed itself? The USSR by this time was slowly being eroded monetarily by the West and although they had their arsenals from the 50's and 60's by the time the 70's came their war machine was in serious decline and their need for natural resources then needed to be expanded hence the invasion of Afghanistan.

In the above example lies the strategy for what you saw unfolding before you with the whole terrorism issue. As the Straussian ideologues learned form events with the Soviet Union and their core philosophy that the struggle must be presented to the masses simply as "good vs. evil" proves highly successful when you want to accomplish other goals. They take non-existing threat or a marginally small threat and blow it out of proportions in order to scare the living daylights out of the target audience.

This now takes us to Afghanistan after the war. According to that MSNBC article you sourced. It is known that CIA was indirectly funding Bin Laden through the MAK, correct? If this is the case, why would they need an informant to tell them about "Al Qaeda?"

And I admit there was an error of fact about the 2000 date. I should have stated before this "informant" began collaboration with the Feds and other unsubstantiated rumors before then. And who was this informant who fingered "Al Qaeda?" His name is Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl. And why was he in Federal court testifying against Al Qaeda?

Here's why <http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/13/Embassy.bombings.trial/ :
Al-Fadl previously testified that he broke with bin Laden in 1996 after siphoning off $110,000 in al Qaeda funds that he could not pay back. He approached an American embassy and offered his insider's knowledge of an organization run by a man now topping the U.S. government's most wanted list.

And here's why:

David Baugh, a defense attorney for al-'Owhali, questioned Al-Fadl Tuesday. In the course of the cross-examination, Baugh produced a document showing the bill for keeping Al-Fadl in the witness protection program has cost more than $794,000 since 1999. The FBI's cost has been an additional $151,000 since 1997.

So here we have an admitted embezzler "siphoning off" $110,000 from Bin Laden and then getting nearly a million dollars from the US federal government to make a case against Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda." I, and others, see a conflict here.

Now, if you see "The power of Nightmares," in part 3 it is stated and is widely reported that the actual mastermind of 9/11 was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-15%2CGGLJ%3Ae n&q=Khalid+Sheikh+Mohammad+911&btnG=Search who is believed to have sought funding from Bin Laden. Why hasn't a trail in connection with 9/11 been held against Sheikh Mohammed? Why on the FBI's own website
<http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm is 9/11 not listed as one of Bin Laden's crimes? None of this smells right.

And of course Bin Laden is going to mention "Al Qaeda" after 9/11 and after he died <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/17/attack/main515468.shtml The people that are fabricating those "confessions" <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm need to get their act together and realize that Bin Laden, before 9/11, didn't mention "Al Qaeda" in any of his well publicized speeches. But in essence, the whole Bin Laden/MAK/CIA connection is one of convenience. Basically, Bin Laden was sent to Afghanistan in the 80's to keep tabs on the CIA
sponsored Heroine smuggling operation. He had very little to do with the actual Mujahadin resistance against the Soviets and possibly continued to run the drug running operations during the Taliban years and probably up until the US invaded. The "Islamist" resistance movement is just a front or a cover story for the real purpose of funneling millions to Bin Laden during the time frame in question and protection of the Heroine smuggling industry even during the time when we are led to believe that the Taliban had eradicated it. The Bin Laden family itself was connected to BCCI/Carlyle Group/Iran
Contra <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-15%2CGGLJ%3Ae n&q=BCCI+Carlyle+Group+Iran+Contra and the US political figures and families involved in the above criminal operations.

This is the reason why "Al Qaeda" needed pilots in "training" missions in CIA front "aviation schools <http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006 -15,GGLJ:en&q=cia+aviation+schools " and the perfect fall guys for the false flag 9/11 operation <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLJ%2CGGLJ%3A2006-15%2CGGLJ%3Ae n&q=911+false+flag .

But I think your going after Loose Change is a lost cause. There are indeed many errors of fact in it as I had pointed out two articles that really look at it critically and without using the usual "official sources" as you have used. However, muddled in the mess that is Loose Change, there are serious questions that have been glossed over by the 9/11 Commission and the conclusions of NIST. What you need to do is step back and read through the NIST report and see what they have omitted and compare that to the videos
Of that day. In that case 2 + 2 does not equal 4. It's very simple. That and the fact that, as I have shown above, Al Qaeda is a manufactured, or unrealistically projected organization, shows that the real criminals of the 9/11 attack are still at large and may strike again (if they don't get the wars that they want).

But look at it this way, how much is this war ultimately going to cost Americans <http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/08/19/opinion/20bilmes.html ? People kill people for a lot less money and in the geo-strategic climate that 9/11 has facilitated, you need to put the current "realignment" of power in perspective. A "Jihadist" could never realize the dream of turning the US into police state. But the US government can, in a time of crisis," pull off what the "Jihadist" can only dream of. There are your motives for this "war" and why it will only expand and eventually consume all of us in the USA. Bin Laden is dead <http://whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html and the cause of the Islamic extremists is just as dead since 9/11 was the nail to their coffin. As an organized terror group, Al Qaeda never really existed. And if they were indeed based in Afghanistan, then they're remnants met their demise when the US invaded. If anything goes "boom" we'll have to look elsewhere for suspects and motive.
My reply:

Nestor,

If you had read my piece on “Loose Change,” you would know that I am thoroughly unimpressed by beliefs that parade as facts. You seem to believe that I should somehow give credence to the conclusions of “Loose Change,” despite the fact that its creators get every single material claim demonstrably wrong. Sorry, but I require evidence.

When you have evidence that your claims are true, I’ll gladly look at it. When you have evidence that a single person not already named in the “official version” had anything to do with the planning and execution of 9/11, I’ll be glad to look at it. When you have evidence that bin Laden is dead and that recordings of him have been faked, I’ll be glad to look at it. When you have evidence that Islamic terrorists did not attack the U.S. on 9/11, I’ll be glad to look at it.

Until then, you're just parroting the warmed-over beliefs of conspiracy theorists, and ignoring the mountains of evidence gathered by thousands of experts.

Sincerely,
Mark Roberts

So, I don't think I came across as "completely stumpped," but I'll see what Nestor has to say.

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 08:43 AM

*sigh*

These people don't have a clue what a good and reliable source of information is.

Kent1

25th June 2006, 03:31 PM

If your looking for an "official".gov website connecting KSM and Osama, you can go here.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-610042.html
Al Qaeda Says It Carried Out September 11th Attacks
Allegations doubting Al Qaeda involvement proven false

pg 149 of the commission report
... Bin Ladin, apparently at Atef's urging, finally decided to give KSM the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. (p. 149)

MarkyX

25th June 2006, 06:06 PM

That link was just painful. Watching Killtown try to use Occam's razor, but instead he just cuts himself shaving :covereyes

Love the "freefall strawman" argument.

kookbreaker

25th June 2006, 09:18 PM

Ah, NesNYC is the guy who claimed in emails to me that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is a threat manufactured by the U.S. .

That's the lightweight version of Nesync. He also thinks any and all suicidal bombings in Isreal or elsewhere are 'Zionist propoganda', he claimed all the old PLO hijackings were Mossad operations designed to 'get us used to Arabs taking over planes'. Pretty much anything that might point towards the guilt of Al Queda or Osama is 'Zionist propaganda'. Oh, and he's a holocost denier as well.

He tries to claim things on the screwloosechange comments section. His usual comment is to say 'We all know that (WTC7 was bombed, evil jooos eat babies, etc.)' withou a whit of evidence. He puts of links that are just comments posted into google to get kooky website results.

He's rather disgusting. And he talks his 'accomplishments' up a lot bigger than they really happened.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 09:39 PM

Ah. I knew he was a kook, but I didn't know he was that far gone. He's another one who bad-mouhted me on LC but refused my challenge to debate here.

chipmunk stew

26th June 2006, 11:54 AM

Ah. I knew he was a kook, but I didn't know he was that far gone. He's another one who bad-mouhted me on LC but refused my challenge to debate here.

YESTERDAY (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6806&view=findpost&p=5593190)
LMAO! The guys are the JERF must be pissed off to be telling Mark Roberts what is being said here. Anyway, here's my last message to him but case in point, I suggest everyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job, to stay off of the JERF forum. You will just get yourself in time consuming flame wars and we know the "skeptics" (although they readily believe the official farce) might never come around to admitting to themselves the truth about 9/11. Our time is better spent spreading the message to those who will listen. Let the OS'ers stay in their limited space and keep hating those who hold different opionions than they do.
This was my last message to you and you did not reply so therefore by your silence, you have failed to prove your point on Osama and therefore your cause.
There's nothing more to say, you guys are simply pushing the official myth to fight those who are exposing them, that's pretty circular if you ask me.
Regardless, I feel the folks over at JERF think of themselves as high and mighty and I could probably never prove my case there. You guys have convinced yourself the government lies are true and there's not much more that folks like me can do about that.
I purposely stay off the JERF site because I know it would simply be a waste of time. I've had many flame wars over the years and know when not to engage in them. I suggest you do to same. And if you feel so strongly about fighting the terrorist, please sign up at your local recruiter as soon as possible, they are looking for people such as yourself who don't dare question authority.
Have a great day!
-----Original Message-----
Nestor,
Someone on the JREF forum pointed out this post of yours to me:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...dpost&p=5577268 (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6806&view=findpost&p=5577268)
I'm sure you know that I am banned from posting on the LC forum. Many people there have sworn that they were going to "take me on." None have attempted to do so.
Let's go, Nestor. This is your chance to show everybody how you "Stumpped" me. As you said, it's easy to "debunk" my work.
Just sign up here
http://forums.randi.org/
and we'll discuss what LC got right that I got wrong, okay? I'll let you choose the topics.
I look forward to seeing you on the JREF forum.
Mark Roberts

TODAY (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5836&view=findpost&p=5616055)
And where is your debunk of Gravys intake on Loose Change they stil waiting for it or what?
The whole thing has been debunked in that he and the other skeptics believe Osama pulled of 9/11. But the only link ever made to him was a video many suspect of being faked and after Bin Laden is known to have died. That shoots a massive hole in the skeptic's arguments they cannot get around. Because if Osama didn't order 9/11, who did?

hurdygurdy

26th June 2006, 01:32 PM

Here's another guy from LC who has "debunked" Gravy's guide:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6881&st=0&#entry5618047

Impressive work, huh?

Sal The Butcher

26th June 2006, 02:22 PM

i DO believe there is a coverup ogf some sort by our government pertaining to 911, but i think loose change being the most well known film is a bad thing, ive got one critique, not sure if someones already mentioned it, there is a picture that supposedley shows agents removing a 'suspicious package' from the pentegon...

whne the picture is examined you can tell the object is infact one of the tents set up on the lawn, and its actually being carried TOWARDS the pentegon, not from it

its obvious when you examine it closley, the colors are consistent (there is a white cloth on a certain part) and the thing obviously weighs VERRY little based on the way its being carried

greyfeather75

26th June 2006, 05:33 PM

les raphael has proven himself to be quite formidable in his idiocy...tom cruise better watch out....

how about a few of these conveniences:

1. this morning I woke up at 7am to go to work.
why 7am? why not 8am or 6:30am?

2. I saw an accident at such and such intersection.
why did I see it? Why wasn't I looking away? Why wasn't I at that or this intersection instead?

3. I arrived at work late, at 8:45am.
Why not 8:30am or 9:00am? Why did I go to work instead of the hospital, movie, or whorehouse?

His "69 conveniences" are the most blatant affront to intelligence I've ever encountered.

orphia nay

26th June 2006, 10:40 PM

Exactly, greyfeather75, and welcome.

I find it interesting that after I posted my analysis of Les Raphael's 69, he stopped posting, and his buddy Ray Ubinger turns up.

Axiom_Blade

26th June 2006, 10:52 PM

YESTERDAY (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6806&view=findpost&p=5593190)

TODAY (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5836&view=findpost&p=5616055)

Why does he keep spelling it J-E-R-F? Is this some kind of put-down?
Or does he just not know any better?

Gravy

26th June 2006, 11:03 PM

He is to bin Laden and al Qaeda what Christophera is to steel cores. And the main bin Laden video I directed him to was NOT the one he mentioned, but the one from November, 2004: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Actually, the more I think about it, NesNyc acts a LOT like Christophera. Completely immune to reason and evidence. I wonder how they turn that feature on and off. I mean, it wouldn't serve them well at work or the supermarket, would it?

RandFan

27th June 2006, 12:18 AM

gumboot

27th June 2006, 04:43 AM

I gotta admit, the question about the whorehouse seems to have some validity, I mean, why not?

Where were you on the night in question? Is it, indeed, not true that you were NOT at a whorehouse...

wait...

or was that, not true that you WERE at a whorehouse...

er...

-Andrew

brodski

27th June 2006, 05:06 AM

Where were you on the night in question? Is it, indeed, not true that you were NOT at a whorehouse...

wait...

or was that, not true that you WERE at a whorehouse...

er...

-Andrew

I gotta admit, the question about the whorehouse seems to have some validity, I mean, why not?

Maybe it's a double bluff, and he works at the whorehouse? :p

MarkyX

27th June 2006, 07:51 AM

gumboot

27th June 2006, 08:31 AM

Maybe it's a double bluff, and he works at the whorehouse? :p

Fiend! Is there nothing to which these people will not stoop!?!

How is an upstanding free democratic society meant to protect against double bluffing? How I ask!

-Andrew

DavidJames

4th July 2006, 07:57 AM

Someone named "Seabhcan" claims to have written Gravy about his guide. Here is the link. I responded to him asking him to respond with his actual comments and the response he received.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=7411&p=5815321

I have personally written to the author of this 'viewers guide' pointing out several errors and mistakes that he has made. He has point-blank refused to correct them.

This is a hit piece - he is not interested in fairness or reality.

Darth Rotor

7th August 2006, 11:00 AM

various comments
Gravy:
Your analysis of Loose Change is a good read. I'd invite you to tighten up your critique of LC's Pentagon remarks, as they pertain to Captain Burlingame and his Naval Service. The source you link to is all over the map with facts.
BURLINGAME, CHARLES FRANK III CAPT US NAVY VETERAN SERVICE DATES: 06/09/1971 - 06/01/1979 DATE OF BIRTH: 09/12/1949 DATE OF DEATH: 09/11/2001 DATE OF INTERMENT: 12/12/2001
After he left the Navy, Burlingame was hired by American Airlines in 1989.
This appears to be a typo.
He had eluded death before, in his eight years flying F-4 Phantom jet fighters for the Navy and 17 years in the cockpit for American Airlines.
That would put his hiring by American in roughly 1984, which does not make sense, however, 17 years in the Naval Reserve fits, as he retired in 1996, 17 years after he changed his comission to reserve from active. (1979)
A senior pilot at American Airlines, he began his airline career in 1979 after graduating from the Naval Academy in 1971. Chic served as a naval aviator flying F4 Phantoms and stayed in the reserves and rose to the rank of Captain. He earned the “Defense Superior Service Medal” and retired in 1996 after twenty-five years of distinguished service.
That entry fits the profile of a Navy pilot hiring on with an airline and remaining in the Reserves. He got out in 1979, and hired on with American right away. So, 22 year Captain with American, 17 Years in Naval Reserves, retiring in 1996, drilling at the Pentagon. Which leads us to . . .
October 24th, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training exercises called MASCAL, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, Participates in this exercise before retiring to take a job at American Airlines, where, less than a year later, his Boeing 757 allegedly crashes into the building.
That's wrong. Burlingame had been a pilot with American since 1979. Source (Thanks CurtC)
Please spell out the chronology, as your criticism is incomplete. Don't make your readers look around for the facts, your "source" link has much detail, and but also contains errors. His career profile is easily constructed by someone familiar with how things work from Naval Aviator to Airline pilot, someone like me. I am a USNA graduate. I retired from the Navy after 25 years of being a Navy Pilot. Many of my buddies left after 7 or 8 years to fly with various airlines. Their careeers were very similar to his above profile.

Suggested points in the ripping the LC morons a new one:

1. Captain Burlingame was a Navy F-4 pilot until 1979.
2. He then transferred to the reserves and hired on with American Airlines.
3. His reserve duty drills included duty at the Pentagon.
4. Since he retired from the reserves in 1996, he would not have been involved in a Military role in the MASCAL exercise in 2000.

Gravy, a lot of military disaster planning and exercise set ups, since Hurricane Andrew, include civilian participants. It is likely that the MASCAL exercise included representatives from the Airline Industry. MASCAL press release (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/ContPlan.html) That might be a verifiable fact in a FOIA request, or a letter to the DoD,. or to American Airlines. I suspect that this drill would be built as follows: a 757 from Reagan Airport (whose approach and departure path is rather near the Penatgon) either has a malfunction and crashes into the Pentagon, or is somehow hijacked and crashed. The training audience is The Emergency Response Cell in the Pentagon and in the local area. Note from the article that the Police and Fire Departments were participants. I suspect an Airline company assisted with the set up of how such a crash might occur. Could have been American Airlines.

If industry reps were at the exercise, it is possible that Captain Burlingame was asked by his company, American Airlines, to be their rep at the 2000 MASCAL exercise due to his contacts in the Navy, and at the Pentagon, via the Reserves and his various USNA buddies.

Dylan and the morons cite no source that shows who the MASCAL participants were. My modest prerusal didn't either, with Google, other than cops, firemen, and the usual Pentagon bunch. I offer you a plausible scenario in which Captain Burlingame could have been, after retiring from the reserves, present at the MASCAL exercise in his role as Airline Industry expert. Or, he may have designed a previous exercise before he retired from the reserves. (Source of unknown reliability.)
IN the usual garbage from the MSM, we find an alleged quote from the Washington Post (http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t49914-1050.html)
“The Washington Post reported on 16 September 2001 that the pilot of Flight 77 was former F-4 fighter pilot Charles Burlingame III, who in his last Navy job, developed anti-terror strategies for the Navy before retiring to fly for American Airlines. He drafted the Pentagon’s emergency response plan in case it was hit by a civilian airliner. Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon. It is not clear which MASCAL Charles Burlingame III authored.”
From personal experience: after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, plenty of us in the military had to do exercises like that, the anti terrorism rock drill, and someone has to set up such an exercise. It is no trivial undertaking.

After the embassy attacks in Africa, Tanzania and Kenya, the terrorist drills got more play in exercises. It is extremely likely that Captain Burlingame and some other salty old reservists put together, as one of their drills, a "what if the terrorists attack" exercise. It is one of the things reservists get tagged with doing. Of course, the Post incorrectly characterized Captain Burlingame's Navy and Ariline career tie in, but then, they are the effing Washingto Post, so who is surprised? :mad:

LC's presentation juxtaposes his F-4 pilot history, the exercise, and that he at one point worked in the Pentagon as a series of unlinked facts, in the manner of an ignoramus. The LC morons overlook, ignore, or never bothered to research any etail.

As to Captain Burlingame's sister implying that the Pentagon was "holy ground" for a Naval Aviator, I'll call that an overstatement. She loves her brother, but the Pentagon is hardly "holy ground" to anyone in the service. It is more like a necessary evil. :cool: Holy Ground for a Naval Aviator is in Pensacola, Florida, and it used to be called Trader John's. :D

A few points for laymen:

Why do people present aircraft speeds in miles per hour? They are generally measured in knots, aka "Nautical Miles Per Hour" just as wind speeds are. Also in kilometers per hour, on Airpseed guages so calibrated. Everything I ever flew in the Navy was calibrated in knots. (The conversion is simple arithmetic)

The photograph shows Captain Burlingame in his Naval Aviator's uniform of Captain. Drilling as a reservist, and living in Fairfax county,He remained active in the reserve, working until 1996 as a liaison in the Pentagon.
His sister noted that he was "a Navy reservist who volunteered for the Gulf War. (1990/1991) Probably got stuck on a staff, the poor man, apparently a Pentagon based staff rather than over in the gulf. Lucky him.
Burlingame considered the most difficult job to be landing an F-4 fighter jet on the deck of an aircraft carrier as it pitched at sea in the dark of night. Once, his brothers recalled, he put down a jet without landing gear. No one was injured.
Irrelevant, other than to show that he was a good stick, could handle pressure, and could handle emergencies. He was a Navy Phantom pilot, so all of that is a given. :cool: The Navy and every Airline spend a great deal of time and money training their pilots to handle their aircraft when "things go down the tubes." While flying an F-4 and a 757 are two very different tasks, many a fighter pilot has made the transition to flying a "bus" smoothly.
When his plane went down Tuesday, it ripped through a section of the building that includes the Navy Reserve offices.
Cruel Irony, that. :(

Warmest regards, Gravy, and a hearty "Bravo Zulu" to you for your work on the rebuttal to the LC Morons. LC's assertion that Captain Burlingame was somehow involved in a nefarious plot to defraud America, and to kill people who were his brothers in arms makes me want to find that little sh** and punch him in his lying, slandering mouth with great force.

Darth Rotor

MikeW

7th August 2006, 11:31 AM

IN the usual garbage from the MSM, we find an alleged quote from the Washington Post
“The Washington Post reported on 16 September 2001 that the pilot of Flight 77 was former F-4 fighter pilot Charles Burlingame III, who in his last Navy job, developed anti-terror strategies for the Navy before retiring to fly for American Airlines. He drafted the Pentagon’s emergency response plan in case it was hit by a civilian airliner. Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon. It is not clear which MASCAL Charles Burlingame III authored.”
I think that quote is made up. The only story I found in the Post on the 16th that referenced Burlingame says nothing about Burlingame authoring any emergency response plan (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15)

Darth Rotor

7th August 2006, 12:36 PM

I think that quote is made up. The only story I found in the Post on the 16th that referenced Burlingame says nothing about Burlingame authoring any emergency response plan (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15)
Thanks, Mike, the site it came from is called "commonsense commonground" or something like that. So, the alleged article is either missing from the WP archives, or never happened, or this was sheer misattribution -- on the internet, who would have thunk it? ;)

DR

MikeW

7th August 2006, 01:00 PM

Thanks, Mike, the site it came from is called "commonsense commonground" or something like that. So, the alleged article is either missing from the WP archives, or never happened, or this was sheer misattribution -- on the internet, who would have thunk it? ;)

Actually, in retrospect I phrased that badly. The original paragraph you quoted said this:
“The Washington Post reported on 16 September 2001 that the pilot of Flight 77 was former F-4 fighter pilot Charles Burlingame III, who in his last Navy job, developed anti-terror strategies for the Navy before retiring to fly for American Airlines. He drafted the Pentagon’s emergency response plan in case it was hit by a civilian airliner. Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon. It is not clear which MASCAL Charles Burlingame III authored.”
The actual reference in the Post article said only this:
At Dulles Airport, Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon
So what they've done is quoted the article correctly in the first sentence, but then tacked on some extra bits (from "He drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan") for themselves, without saying where they've come from. I was wrong to say they made up the quote, then: the real problem is they're making big claims without providing any reference to back them up.

gumboot

7th August 2006, 04:58 PM

Also worth noticing, the air crash drill they did at the Pentagon (and show pictures of in LC) was an aviation accident designed to test local emergency services and military co-ordination. It did not involve any form of terrorism.

Also, ironically, reports from DoD staff suggest the exercise wasn't so useful - emergency services were unable to cope, freaked out at things like the flash-burns (they look much worse than they really are) and the military ended up taking over.

(From an email my father received from a friend who worked very close to the section that was hit, but was out of his office at the time of impact)

-Andrew

Darth Rotor

7th August 2006, 05:03 PM

Also worth noticing, the air crash drill they did at the Pentagon (and show pictures of in LC) was an aviation accident designed to test local emergency services and military co-ordination. It did not involve any form of terrorism.
-Andrew
What did you think I meant by this?
The training audience is The Emergency Response Cell in the Pentagon and in the local area. Note from the article that the Police and Fire Departments were participants. I suspect an Airline company assisted with the set up of how such a crash might occur. Could have been American Airlines.
Or, were you repeating for emphasis?

Interesting to hear what some folks inside thought about the exercise.

DR

gumboot

7th August 2006, 07:14 PM

Or, were you repeating for emphasis?

Interesting to hear what some folks inside thought about the exercise.

More just emphasising clarifying - many of the newspaper articles (especially the stuff the Truthers like to cling to) make the waters a bit murky by trying to pin him to a terrorism exercise.

The ultimate presentation being this recent exercise at the Pentagon was ALSO one of these terrorism exercises (thus replicate the 9/11 attack).

Just wanted to emphasise to everyone that the exercise in question didn't involve terrorism, thus blowing all CT claims out of the water. :)

-Andrew

P.S. I believe the main reason most people report the aircraft speed in MPH is because it's familiar. Most people don't know what knots are. Likewise, here in New Zealand you'll usually see stuff like this described in km/h.

DrCron

7th August 2006, 09:13 PM

delphi_ote

7th August 2006, 10:32 PM

I'm in the process of turning the doc into a nice PDF (perhaps a PS later, if people want one). I hope thats ok with gravy, and will await approval before releasing a link. I should have it up in a little while.
That is a very good idea, DrCron. If Gravy approves, I'm sure it will be much appreciated.

DrCron

8th August 2006, 12:24 AM

Darth Rotor

8th August 2006, 11:22 AM

More just emphasising clarifying - many of the newspaper articles (especially the stuff the Truthers like to cling to) make the waters a bit murky by trying to pin him to a terrorism exercise.

The ultimate presentation being this recent exercise at the Pentagon was ALSO one of these terrorism exercises (thus replicate the 9/11 attack).

Just wanted to emphasise to everyone that the exercise in question didn't involve terrorism, thus blowing all CT claims out of the water. :)

-Andrew

P.S. I believe the main reason most people report the aircraft speed in MPH is because it's familiar. Most people don't know what knots are. Likewise, here in New Zealand you'll usually see stuff like this described in km/h.
Thanks to Gravy, I took a peek on steel/temp curves. "Drawing a picture," will try to find a better one. Figure 3 is what shows why the argument against thermal loading as a likely cause for failure ignores simple material science.

http://www.wtia.com.au/pdf/TGN-PE-04%20Weld%20Repair%20of%20Creep%20Damaged%20Steel. pdf

See also this article (http://www.key-to-steel.com/articles/art88.htm)
http://www.key-to-steel.com/articles/art88.htm
but note that temps are in def F, not deg C, so do a little C = 1.8*f - 32 to match up the temps of jet fuel, and everything else that was burning, to see where some standard steel alloys would be expected to fail.

DR

Gravy

9th August 2006, 06:29 AM

Has anyone actually used a PC with microsoft office to open this? All the images are broken (endian diffrences it seems). It seems the easiest way to fix is to use office on a mac to reformat the images ala http://www.thrrrust.com/~pclark/blog/2004/12/quicktime-and-tiff-lzw-decompressor.html if someone could do this I can have the pdf a half an hour later.
Thanks for offering to do a PDF. I wasn't able to create one with Acrobat that would preserve both the formatting and the hyperlinks: it would only do one or the other.

I get several emails each day about the LC critique, and I haven't had any complaints about the graphics. They are all jpegs. From the link you gave, it may be an issue with using copy/paste to place the images, although I thought I used the insert image command to avoid any such problems.

The recut version of LC2E is due out soon, so I'm going to wait for that before making revisions.

Gravy

9th August 2006, 06:32 AM

Thanks to Gravy, I took a peek on steel/temp curves. "Drawing a picture," will try to find a better one. Figure 3 is what shows why the argument against thermal loading as a likely cause for failure ignores simple material science.

http://www.wtia.com.au/pdf/TGN-PE-04%20Weld%20Repair%20of%20Creep%20Damaged%20Steel. pdf

See also this article (http://www.key-to-steel.com/articles/art88.htm)
http://www.key-to-steel.com/articles/art88.htm
but note that temps are in def F, not deg C, so do a little C = 1.8*f - 32 to match up the temps of jet fuel, and everything else that was burning, to see where some standard steel alloys would be expected to fail.

DR
I'd be more interested to hear what you have to say about NIST's findings, since they're specifically about conditions in the towers.

Darth Rotor

9th August 2006, 10:26 AM

I'd be more interested to hear what you have to say about NIST's findings, since they're specifically about conditions in the towers.
Thanks, Gravy, it may take a week or two to read their entire report, and if my brain can soak it up and spit out something lucid, I'll be happy to do so.

Were you interested in what I provided to you about Captain Burlingame and the MASCAL issue, or was I wasting my breath with that?

DR

Gravy

9th August 2006, 07:22 PM

Thanks, Gravy, it may take a week or two to read their entire report, and if my brain can soak it up and spit out something lucid, I'll be happy to do so.

Were you interested in what I provided to you about Captain Burlingame and the MASCAL issue, or was I wasting my breath with that?

DR
Just read it. Thanks for all the info. I obviously didn't do enough homework on the subject!

Darth Rotor

10th August 2006, 06:05 AM

Just read it. Thanks for all the info. I obviously didn't do enough homework on the subject!
I would not expect a single man to do it all. I took your request of offering insights (from your guide) to heart and provided what I could based on where I had specific knowledge.

Given the very hard work, and time you put in on your guide, it is the least I can do to help. The thanks, and honor, go to you. :)

DR

jonronson

13th August 2006, 10:28 AM

deleted

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th August 2006, 04:13 PM

deleted

BALEETED!

CurtC

13th August 2006, 09:49 PM

October 24th, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training exercises called MASCAL, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, Participates in this exercise before retiring to take a job at American Airlines, where, less than a year later, his Boeing 757 allegedly crashes into the building.
That's wrong. Burlingame had been a pilot with American since 1979. Source (Thanks CurtC)

Please spell out the chronology, as your criticism is incomplete. Don't make your readers look around for the facts, your "source" link has much detail, and but also contains errors.
Loose Change is saying that Chick worked on these excercises at the Pentagon, then heads to American Airlines, the implication being that he left the military, then went over to AA to finish the job. I don't see a problem with saying "That's wrong." It omits the fact that he was in the reserves, but you don't need that fact to simply show that LC is wrong.

Darth Rotor

14th August 2006, 10:21 AM

Loose Change is saying that Chick worked on these excercises at the Pentagon, then heads to American Airlines, the implication being that he left the military, then went over to AA to finish the job. I don't see a problem with saying "That's wrong." It omits the fact that he was in the reserves, but you don't need that fact to simply show that LC is wrong.
I disagree with you Curt.

It is significant that Captain Burlingame was a drilling Naval Reservist, who drilled at the Pentago . . . until 1996. Kill the LC BS by doing more than saying "you are wrong, he was an American Captain since 1979." That DOES NOT ANSWER THE military connection of Captain Burlingame, which is the core assertion LC jerkamania makes as it tries to build a conspiracy theory.

Since the evidence is available, as I point out, then slam dunk the sunzabitches with it. Bury them with it. Don't leave them a loophole, not a crack, not a breath of air.

I don't know if you knew Capt Burlingame or not, I never met the gentleman. However, I am angry at the libel and slander those LC morons are perpetrating on his name and reputation, the both of us being Alums of the USNA and Naval Aviation, so please forgive me if I don't find your minimalist riposte to be sufficient.

DR

CurtC

18th August 2006, 01:16 PM

As many here know, I host the HTML version of Gravy's Loose Change Viewer's Guide on my own web site. Today I checked the server logs.

After it was posted, there were about 1000-1500 people per day viewing the page. Then around July 27, that number jumped to more than 20,000 (again, per day). I think this must be about the time that Maddox's blog posted a link to it (I had never heard of Maddox, but his blog is apparently pretty popular).

It peaked at more than 30,000 viewers on one day, and now the Maddox bubble is wearing off - it's down to around 7000 per day. Around half of those were referred by his site.

So far this month (it's the 18th), my server has delivered over 100 GB of data total.

By the way, there are six pages to the HTML viewer's guide, and I'm not counting visitors multiple times just because they viewed more than one page. It's now getting 7000 unique viewers per day.

kevin

18th August 2006, 07:43 PM

So far this month (it's the 18th), my server has delivered over 100 GB of data total.

You gotta paypal link to help pay for bandwidth? I can cough up a few bucks to the cause.

RUSirius

31st August 2006, 01:23 PM

SKEPTICS, WE NEED YOU AT THIS EVENT!!!

thanks
RU Sirius

9/11: Considering All the Claims
The producers of The RU Sirius Show bring you 9/11: Considering All the Claims. During this rare, FREE public presentation, you will be able to examine all the issues at one event on Sunday, September 10th, 2006.

The backers of the “shadow government” camp have many issues that they believe were not addressed by the authorities in investigating the attacks; the backers of the “Bin Laden-did-it” camp have questions of their own. Both sides have accused the other of perpetrating wild conspiracy theories and hoaxes upon the public, so we thought we’d provide an open examination and critique of the major points, especially given recent polls that show 42% of Americans suspect the government had a hand in causing the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Joel Schalit, a Managing Editor for Tikkun Magazine, will be representing those who are skeptical about the “conspiracy theories.” Fred Burks, who served as a foreign language interpreter for top officials in many countries, including Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, will be representing the “pro-conspiracy” view.

The RU Sirius Show is a weekly podcast and internet radio program that explores weird memes and alternative cultures. Show guests have included Dave Eggers, Burning Man leader Larry Harvey, filmmaker Richard Linklater, and Blag Dhalia of the Dwarves.

RU Sirius Show host RU Sirius was the co-publisher and editor-in-chief of the legendary cyberpunk magazine Mondo 2000 in the early 1990s. Since then he has written eight books including “Counterculture Through The Ages” and “Design For Dying” with Timothy Leary.

Sirius will host the panel along with RU Sirius Show co-host Jeff Diehl. Other show cast members include Diana Brown and Steve Robles.

WHAT: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debate
WHO: The RU Sirius Show
WHERE: Off-Market Theater, 965 Mission Street (at 5th), San Francisco
WHEN: Sunday, September 10, 2PM
COST: FREE
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: steverobles |at| gmail.com

delphi_ote

31st August 2006, 07:07 PM

SKEPTICS, WE NEED YOU AT THIS EVENT!!!

thanks
RU Sirius

Wish I could make it, but I'm in Orlando.

San Franscisco Autobots, transform and roll out! :D

JimboWHO

17th November 2006, 05:42 PM

I just joined (after lurking for a day or two) and found out what is well-known around here - that GRAVY is Mark Roberts. My hat is off to you on your Loose Change Guide - a very impressive job and an important service to the families of the victims. I loved reading every word of it!

Just thought I'd add my exchange with Dylan Avery to the forum.:

Dylan Avery,

Having read no fewer than 4 point-by-point rebuttals of Loose Change that utterly eviscerate your thesis I have a question and a comment. First the comment. To have dedicated your 'documentary' to the victims and their families is outrageous in view of the fact that you disrespect them so often throughout the story.

Secondly, when do you plan on: (a) reclassifying this story as fiction (b) acknowledging your countless errors and (c) apologizing for this charade ?

Jim Malmstrom

HIS REPLY:

Jim,
You talk a big game, but none of the things you bring up are true.
Thanks for your input, though.
-Dylan

twinstead

17th November 2006, 09:35 PM

I'd love to have him tell us exactly what things you brought up that aren't true, and why

delphi_ote

17th November 2006, 11:01 PM

I'd love to have him tell us exactly what things you brought up that aren't true, and why
And finally expose the truth for all to see? Are you mad? Do you know what would happen if Dylan told all?

orphia nay

18th November 2006, 12:46 AM

Welcome to the forum, JimboWHO. Great first post.

Dylan talks a big game, but doesn't do anything about 9/11 besides trying to profit from it. Well, and pith on the graves of the heroes and victims, plagiarise other people's work, and JAQ off. How many of the eyewitnesses or authorities in his video did he contact?

JimboWHO

18th November 2006, 06:07 PM

I have no idea why I just have a hunch that he's not gonna be a 'lifer' - you know, an Alex Jones or Jimmy Walter-type 50 year old CTist. He's just gonna come under more and more criticism and when the $$ dries up he may become a bit more, say, introspective. Of course I could be completely wrong.

You can see this ending very badly for Dylan Avery and the other clowns. I want very badly to seem them utterly discredited, disowned and exposed as the calous charlatans that they are. I can't empahsize enough the joy I get from the results of the small cottage industry that exists solely to take down these opportunists.

Again, I applaud Mark Roberts and everybody else that plays a role in this.

Jim

JimboWHO

22nd November 2006, 05:33 PM

Dylan,

You know this ends badly. It's already begun to unravel. What are you gonna do when the money dries up? What will you say to your kids 15 years from now when they learn dad was a crack-pot who hurt a lot of people...will you say "I was an internet star at one time" or "We had a good run - Dad was just having fun" ?

You can't put out enough editions of LC to correct everything. You can't say enough "I'm sorry's" to all the people you've smeared, politicians you've slandered and victims you've mocked. And you can't get back what you've lost: the good name we are all born with.

You rationalize it all with the many people who buy your story - people who believe in Bigfoot. People who believe in Martians. And people who YOU HOPE NEVER EVER GET EDUCATED ON YOUR ERRORS because then the Emperor will be found to have had no clothes. The fact is though you've become comic relief for the level-headed masses who will now enjoy the next act in this play.

Here's to hoping you get what's coming to you.

Jim Malmstrom

AVERY's Reply:

Once again, none of the things you bring up are true. You seem to be
speaking out of emotion instead of logic.
-Dylan

MY Reply:

As if you know logic. The 'FORCES' behind the most horrific STATE SPONSORED TERROR act against it's OWN people allow those that have 'uncovered' their plot to live! All of 'em! Avery! Bermas! Rowe! and Jones! and supporters Bowman, Walters, etc. ALL FREE TO SPEAK AS THEY WISH ...TO THE WORLD....FOR AS LONG AS THEY WISH!

You're a riot.

Jim Malmstrom

I guess that's the end of that.

chippy

27th November 2006, 10:58 PM

The guy who wrote the Loose Change Guide is here? Damn! I want to shake your hand sir!

Free Thinkr

30th November 2006, 10:49 AM

The guy who wrote the Loose Change Guide is here? Damn! I want to shake your hand sir!
Yeah, cool, aint it? I saw the loose change guide when Maddox linked to it; I found it to be quite the useful resource for debunking people who cite loose change. All the info in one easy-to-use area. Apparently this forum is a 911 conspiracy debunking hotspot. Which is why I'm here!

OMGturt1es

1st December 2006, 12:51 AM

i just want to give a quick thanks to all that have been involved with the constant debunking of 9/11 CT crap. i've been reading here for quite a while, and while i rarely post, i've sure enjoyed the randi forums-- especially these conspiracy theory forums! oh, the pleasure i've had sitting with a nice cup of coffee, watching the arguments of dylan and others being completely eviscerated! the evidences produced and compiled here have come in great use when i've had the urge to bang my head against a wall... ;)

gravy and others, it's time for you to expand to a fresh target: jones! destroy him! i'm far too busy at this point to do much of anything, but i've got some "internet friends" that are starting to being CT nuts, and i'd love to just have a single link that i could send 'em to, where alex's cray claims are torn to shreds.

thanks all for the awesome work! it's been greatly appreciated!

~enigma~

1st December 2006, 01:02 PM

gravy and others, it's time for you to expand to a fresh target: jones! destroy him!
Already been done in another thread and in another forum that ultimately ended with the twoofer woowoos banning the guy for informing them about spontaneous thermite/thermate generation. Besides, Jones admits himself that his work is nothing more than a HYPOTHESIS.

delphi_ote

1st December 2006, 03:27 PM

Besides, Jones admits himself that his work is nothing more than a HYPOTHESIS.
It's not a hypothesis. A hypothesis should account for all current evidence and make falsifiable predictions. Jones' ravings do neither.

MikeW

1st December 2006, 03:44 PM

Already been done in another thread and in another forum that ultimately ended with the twoofer woowoos banning the guy for informing them about spontaneous thermite/thermate generation. Besides, Jones admits himself that his work is nothing more than a HYPOTHESIS.
I think you're talking about Jones (Steve), but ^varg meant Jones (Alex).

~enigma~

1st December 2006, 03:53 PM

I think you're talking about Jones (Steve), but ^varg meant Jones (Alex).
Oops :)

Well Steven Jones has been debunked already and Alex Jones is no more than a loudmouthed Michelin Tireman (note the resemblance).