Loose Change - Part II

[Mutton-Head]

OK Wolfshade, I understand that. However, it seems that the exact figure of how much energy was released depends upon how the mass was distributed inside the building. It was more massive at the bottom, (Steel thicker, etc.) and less at the top. To my thinking, it needs to be a dynamic model. For instance, what would the equation be for the first three seconds of collapse? How much energy was released then? Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos. Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized. The model of “this amount of energy released by 500,000 tons,” to me, does not explain how the tower completely destroyed itself. Do you get my meaning? I would expect to see an uneven amount of destruction, with certain levels of the tower not pulverized. The damage is to homogenous for me.

[Regnad Kcin]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.

[Mutton-Head]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.

I guess what I mean by that is this:

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized. To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.) You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires
2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)
3. Buildings collapse symmetrically
(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to? I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down. Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”

[Gravy]

Hi Mutton-Head.

Not being good with numbers, I tend to look more at words. Jim Hoffman's calculations are based on the energy required to do this:

[Jim Hoffman quote] It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.
I have never seen any such documentation. Have you?

Then, he says this:
Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”
Okay, if true. (I'll need to see this "diverse evidence" he refers to). But how much of the mass of the building is accounted for by the dust? Again, I'm not aware of any studies done at the time that attempt to answer this. Are you?

It's a huge question. If he's starting with the wrong premise, Hoffman's calculations may be off by orders of magnitude.

[Gravy]

...I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized.
You provided photos of buildings that toppled from their bases due to the ground moving in earthquakes. You need to provide evidence of why the WTC buildings should have fallen like that.

Sorry, but I doubt if anyone here gives a fig what your beliefs about the WTC are.

[Mutton-Head]

I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.

You need to provide evidence of why the WTC buildings should have fallen like that.

No, I’m saying that I believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did.
My basis for this is the experience of demolition experts. As I said

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to? I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down. Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition. None of them implode buildings using the above method. I believe they don’t because it wouldn’t work.

Again, I ask, any of you who know explosives/demolition, would you implode a building using the above method? Why do you automatically believe the NIST, that such a procedure would work?

[XXX]

"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html

[WildCat]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
:wave1 :big: :bowl: :j1: :j2: :dl: :k:

Loose Change...


PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

OK Wolfshade, I understand that. However, it seems that the exact figure of how much energy was released depends upon how the mass was distributed inside the building. It was more massive at the bottom, (Steel thicker, etc.) and less at the top. To my thinking, it needs to be a dynamic model.

Again, Kausel (iirc) is an MIT professor that was taking part in a panel investigation that would, assumably, be reviewed by peers. It is not unreasonable to believe he used _the right model_.


... Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos.

We see a dust cloud in the videos, it is not appropriate to assume the makeup of that cloud.


Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized.

Evidence?


The model of “this amount of energy released by 500,000 tons,” to me, does not explain how the tower completely destroyed itself. Do you get my meaning? I would expect to see an uneven amount of destruction, with certain levels of the tower not pulverized. The damage is to homogenous for me.
Argument to personal incredulity. Just because you don't believe/can't understand it, doesn't mean it is wrong.

[Gravy]

I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.
You're developing a habit of quoting people's anecdotes that "they've never seen anything like this" as evidence of something. Why do you do that, when you know this was a unique event to everyone in the world?

Again, I asked if you had seen the documentation Hoffman refers to about how much of the building's mass was pulverized. Have you? I strongly suspect it doesn't exist.

This is vitally important to his argument and yours.

No, I’m saying that I believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did.
My basis for this is the experience of demolition experts. As I said
It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition. None of them implode buildings using the above method. I believe they don’t because it wouldn’t work.
Stacey Loiseaux of the Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the world's premier experts in the field, calls WTC CD theories "ludicrous."

Which demolitions expert opinions are you using to back up your belief? I'm not aware of a single one stating that they see evidence of CD work at the WTC, and NONE was found during the exhaustive clean up work.

Again, are you just stating a belief, or do you actually have experts who back you up?

edited for spelling

[WildCat]

Landru, this is great news! If only you could see the smile on my face right now... I'm busting open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale I have saved for special occasions only! :D

[WildCat]

I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.
Mutton-Head, I'm assuming you're implying that it was explosives that turned so much (you'll need to provide evidence that it was all turned to dust, pics from ground zero show quite a bit of large chunks) concrete to dust?

That would be quite an amount of explosives, don't you think? How much TNT, for example, do you think would be necessary to turn 3.3 million square feet of 4 inch thick concrete to dust? Then think about how all of that would make it into the building undetected and unnoticed... really, the mind boggles.

In a controlled demo it is gravity, not explosives, that turns the building into little pieces so it can be carted away.

[Gravy]

Yes, Thaks, Landru. I'm off to buy some beer myself!

[Gravy]

"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html

Thanks, XXX. I should have read your post first!

[Regnad Kcin]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Well, I've just visited loosechange911.com, and it seems the site is running just fine. Also, what text is one to click on to read the legal "b-slap?"

[XXX]

No prob Gravy...

This may help some too, it's also linked from the 9/11 myths sites, and it's a PDF file...a part of Dr. Frank Greening's paper that deals with some of Jim Hoffmans claims about the dust cloud and the concrete.

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

[Pardalis]

Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly

I totally disagree. It begun to pulverize a few seconds AFTER the initial collapse of the top section. See any video of both collapses.

[WildCat]

Well, I've just visited loosechange911.com, and it seems the site is running just fine. Also, what text is one to click on to read the legal "b-slap?"
Try refreshing the page, you must be reading a cached version.

[Gravy]

I totally disagree. It begun to pulverize a few seconds AFTER the initial collapse of the top section. See any video of both collapses.
Some CTs see smoke being pushed out of the collapse zone at the start and claim "Aha! It's gray and billowing...must be concrete dust!" Not accusing Mutton-Head of that, but I've had many CT encounters like that.

[Pardalis]

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously.

This is an error in logic. These events appear to happen simultaneously because both towers received the same damage at about the same moment. When the first tower fell, it was the first time in history such a thing occured. When the second tower collapsed (different event), it became the second time such an event occured. Thus, it is logical to assume that such damage afflicted to these structures can lead to collapses in this fashion. It is your confirmation bias that compells you to see these two events as an orchestrated conspiracy.

Same type of event, because of same type of damage. End of story.

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within.

It is inescapable because you are trapped inside your confirmation bias. Can't you see that???

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

Besides, how can you even make a conclusion when you say yourself that you haven't finished your research. Usually one waits until all evidence is gathered before ever making any definite conclusions.

[NobbyNobbs]

Shoot. Somebody on one of these threads posted, as their 1st or 2nd post, a long discussion of the force it takes to get something to fall. They talked about using force as money in a bank, etc. I really, REALLY wanted to respond to it, but now I can't find the post.

Most of what I wanted to say had to do with how poorly that person understands physics, but in the interest of education, I'd like to do it point by point. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find the post?

[Pardalis]

Landru, this is great news! If only you could see the smile on my face right now... I'm busting open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale I have saved for special occasions only! :D

I can imagine the scene! LOL

[Mutton-Head]

I hear all of your arguments, and I do understand them.

I feel I am not stating an argument from incredulity. It is an argument from experience. If I saw a bunch of would fall from the sky, and land in the form of a house, I would say that that was not possible. Something else contributed to the wood forming into a house. Now I know that this is an exaggeration, (although to be fair, it is much less of an exaggeration than giant purple salamanders. Boy, talk about hyperbole! At least I stayed away from imaginary amphibians.)

In any case…

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

Stacey Loiseaux of the Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the world's premier experts in the field, calls WTC CD theories "ludicrous."

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Remember people, you are all saying that you can easily implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Even if they are big fires. You can't implode a building in this manner. Controlled Demolition will further prove my point by never ever employing this much easier and cheaper procedure. And remember, it really doesn’t matter how many, or where you cut those steel supports on upper floors. It happened on WTC1 and WTC2, and the damage was very different on each building. Yet the collapse was still completely symmetrical. Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. This is not incredulity. It is sound reasoning.
Remember, it’s not just the fact that an expert says something. Is their reasoning sound? Talk is cheep. If Controlled Demolitions uses the “cut and burn” method to implode buildings in the future, then I will admit that I am wrong on this point.


911myths.com is full of errors. They use the L’Ambience Plaza. I already showed that was a totally different kind of structure. With “temporary supports” no less.

[Pardalis]

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

What is your experience with CD specifically? Is it first-hand?

Sorry if I missed it if you already described your experience in some other post.

[Gravy]

re CDI statement:
They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.
Just letting you know that they have also stated they are quite willing to sue for libel on this matter to protect their reputation.

If you have evidence that they are lying, please present it now. Not beliefs, evidence.

This is really getting tiresome.

[Mutton-Head]

But perhaps we are at an impasse…..

No, I haven't reached any conclusions. These aren't conclusions, they're theory. These are details, evidence, not conclusions. Yes I do believe there were more conspirators involved. But this is not a conviction. I’m not a jury. It’s an opinion. It would be more of an indictment. Or, more technically, a call for an indictment. A jury can then decide on conviction or not.

The NIST report is full of omissions. Maybe they will fill those holes. If they don’t, I think it is up to others to try to fill them. It is a government by the people. No, I don’t think everything in government is a huge nefarious conspiracy. This is the only one I’ve ever really felt compelled to investigate.

And I will continue. If I find anything I think to be significant, I will let everybody know.

[Pardalis]

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.

How can you say that? Are you a telepath?

[WildCat]

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Remember people, you are all saying that you can easily implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Even if they are big fires. You can't implode a building in this manner.
You absolutely can demolish a building in this manner! Problem is, the EPA would object to the massive amounts of air pollution involved, and the neighboring property owners would be more than a little miffed at their property being destroyed. After all, the WTC collapses obliterated the entire block and other massive buildings were destroyed in the process! Just check out these pics (http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/)! Kind of blows the whole "fell in its own footprint" claim all to hell, don't it?

[Gravy]

Shoot. Somebody on one of these threads posted, as their 1st or 2nd post, a long discussion of the force it takes to get something to fall. They talked about using force as money in a bank, etc. I really, REALLY wanted to respond to it, but now I can't find the post.

That was in one of Mutton-Head's first posts.

[Landru]

Yes, Thaks, Landru. I'm off to buy some beer myself!

You and Wildcat have a few for me as well.

It's fascinating watching a whole new CT plot develop right before your eyes. Now the Naudets are in on it too...

[Gravy]

Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.
You are correct sir! And you have officially entered "geggy country," where irrelevance is king and beliefs trump evidence and logic every time!

[Pardalis]

It would be more of an indictment. Or, more technically, a call for an indictment. A jury can then decide on conviction or not.


For an indictment, you got to have somekind of physical proof, like sperm on a robe.

[Gravy]

You and Wildcat have a few for me as well.

It's fascinating watching a whole new CT plot develop right before your eyes. Now the Naudets are in on it too...
Just waiting there for that jet to hit...then slyly risking their lives to make it look like they didn't know what was about to happen! Sneaky French!

[Pardalis]

Sneaky French!

Hey!

[Gravy]

In one of the funniest LC posts yet, "Left-Wing Humanist" advocates harassing the law firm that sent Avery the copyright infringement notice:

What about bombardin FGKS and Lisa Davis with mails of malcontence?? NOT threats or bad personal attacks like "You f*cking bitch, i hate u, u f*cking animal, ima slit your throat"... but with a slightly more humble approach, and like appealing to thier conscience ... Might not have an effect, but might have, if there is a massive amount of mail... Might make her insomniac and reduce her skills
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4820459

[Brainster]

But perhaps we are at an impasse…..

No, I haven't reached any conclusions. These aren't conclusions, they're theory. These are details, evidence, not conclusions. Yes I do believe there were more conspirators involved. But this is not a conviction. I’m not a jury. It’s an opinion. It would be more of an indictment. Or, more technically, a call for an indictment. A jury can then decide on conviction or not.

Let me guess, you're not a lawyer? Who are you indicting? PNAC? Larry Silverstein? Marvin Bush? Bushco?

[Gravy]

Hey!
I didn't say "Sneaky French-Canadians." As we all know, it's hard to be sneaky when you're drunk.

[WildCat]

I didn't say "Sneaky French-Canadians." As we all know, it's hard to be sneaky when you're drunk.
Especially when you're wearing those striped shirts and berets they all wear... ;)

[dubfan]

You know, you just can't write comedy this good.

I was talking to a friend and he said the Naudet Bros. are Freemasons, anyone else hear that?

[Pardalis]

I didn't say "Sneaky French-Canadians." As we all know, it's hard to be sneaky when you're drunk.

LOL

I'm not much of a drinker myself, wich makes me kind of an oddity in Québec. But I do swear alot, I guess it balances out.

[Stellafane]

In one of the funniest LC posts yet, "Left-Wing Humanist" advocates harassing the law firm that sent Avery the copyright infringement notice:


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4820459

Ah yes, harassing a law firm, a pastime right up there with kicking a hornet nest or swimming in shark-infested waters while holding a chum bucket between your teeth. I think the little boys at LC will soon find themselves in more doo-doo than the usual phone call from mommy can get them out of. Welcome to the adult world, kids.

BTW, still not quite finished: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[NobbyNobbs]

Thanks, Gravy. I couldn't pass this one up.



A little physics.

Very little, as you will see.

An object falling to earth falls with a specific amount of force:

More accurately, a specific force causes an object to fall to earth. But ok, I'll let it slide.

The mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

Mass x Acceleration = Force.

You've got Newton's 2nd Law right, but then you don't use it correctly. You remind me of my students who memorize the facts without understanding the underlying basis for them.

Think of this force as money in a bank account. You only have a specific amount that you can spend. No more.

I can't comment on this, as it doesn't make any sense at all to me. Use a force up? You might be thinking of energy.

It takes force to accelerate any object. Even a falling object.

When an object falls to earth, all of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Its force (M x A = F) is used-up (spent) to accomplish this acceleration.

Stop right there. The force you are talking about is the gravitational force between the earth and the object. This is given by G*m*M/R^2, where m and M are the masses of the object and the earth respectively, R is the distance between the center of the object and the center of the earth, and G is a constant. This force exists all the time, regardless of where the object is or whether it is moving. Sitting on the ground, it experiences this force. Up in orbit, it experiences this force. In the next galaxy, it experiences this force, although by then it is admittedly extremely small. But at no time is this force "used up".

This is called free-fall. If any solid object is situated below this falling object, some of this “free-fall” force will be absorbed (used) (spent).

Again, I think you are confusing force with energy. They are two different concepts. Simply put, a force is a push or a pull. Energy is the ability to do work.

The fact that steel beams are flying outwards, means that the force of the falling floors is being absorbed. The force is being used to accelerate the steel beams away from the tower. It doesn’t matter how fast they are flying, or at what angle, straight out or not, etc… Just the fact that steel beams landed hundreds of feet from the tower, shows that force (from the falling floors) was used (spent). Force was also used to cut up the vertical steel beams.

Again, mistaking energy for force.

All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long.

Much ado has been made lately that the steel beams broke into convenient 30-foot long sections, to be carried away by trucks. Assuming this is true (an assumption I'm not willing to admit to, but we'll stipulate for the moment) what is overlooked is that it those same beams were carried *in* by trucks when the building was constructed. If they have weak points, it would naturally be every 30 feet.

Remember, we’re talking about steel below the point of impact, which wasn’t subject to fire, and so was still structurally sound.

Structurally sound, perhaps, but certainly not designed to absorb the energy (energy, not force!) of the impact of the 30 or so stories above them.

Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder.

All? You mean to say *no* chunks of concrete survived?

This like-wise took force.

Energy. *sigh*

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance.

(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)

Energy, energy, energy.

The falling floors do not have enough force to accomplish all of these things. We know this just from watching the video, because, as stated, the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed.

Energy. And how do you know they don't have enough? Where's the math?

(Not quite, but only a few seconds more. This is judged by comparing the falling tower with the falling debris.)

A few seconds more, and you discredit this? Many claim the towers fell in about 10 seconds. A few seconds more is 3-4. That's a margin of error of 30-40%!!! Heck, even opinion polls have margins of error of 1/10 of that, and that doesn't even deal with the exactness of the laws of physics.

Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually.

I very much doubt you have performed the math necessary to make this statement honestly.

It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)

I take it you are a structural engineer, and are therefore qualified to make the above statement?

As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.)

But a computer simulation can. Can anybody point us to one?

But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder.

I would not agree, as I am not a structural engineer. However, those with the appropriate expertise have said otherwise, and I trust that.

It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.

Energy.

As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account.

And you've done the math? Would you please present it?

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from.

Energy.

Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with.

And here's the underlying problem. Since that's the only explanation you, as a layperson, can come up with, that's the one you're convinced is correct. And you are the sort of person that once convinced, it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. You are the sort that, had Galileo offered you a peek through his telescope, you would have refused and then claimed that of course the Earth is the center of the universe, because there's no evidence to show otherwise.


This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print.

Perhaps you need to revisit the photographs of Manhattan. What about the debirs that hit WTC7, which you folks like to point out was several blocks away? What about the cloud that covered the lower half of the island? And if what you mean to say is that *most* of the debris fell straight down, well, where the h3ll else did you expect it to go? It would take a tremendous amount of...wait for it....FORCE...to topple a building sideways.


This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash.

I don't know about this. But it's certainly a falsifiable claim. Can anyone out there provide just one circumstance where this *has* happened?

But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions.

Dogs are furry with four legs, two ears, a wet nose and sharp teeth.
This animal exhibits all of those properties. Therefore it is a dog.
(I'm going to ignore the fact that it says "Meow".)

Please excuse the excessive use of alliteration.

Alluding to alliteration is always amusing.

[Pardalis]

Especially when you're wearing those striped shirts and berets they all wear... ;)

I'm not sure about the beret, but we do wear striped shirts

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644790d32c945d.jpg

:D

[Stellafane]

I'm not sure about the beret, but we do wear striped shirts

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644790d32c945d.jpg

:D

Yeah, but how are the Expos doing??

[WildCat]

This force exists all the time, regardless of where the object is or whether it is moving.
Oh yeah smarty pants - what if the object was in the exact center of the Earths mass? ;)

[WildCat]

Yeah, but how are the Nationals doing??
I fixored it for ya. :p

[dubfan]

Is it wrong that I've clicked over to the Loose Change website and re-read that letter from the Naudet's attorney about 5 times now?

I just can't help myself.

[WildCat]

I'm not sure about the beret, but we do wear striped shirts

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644790d32c945d.jpg

:D
Are you telling me all those cartoons were wrong?! :jaw-dropp

[XXX]

911myths.com is full of errors. They use the L’Ambience Plaza. I already showed that was a totally different kind of structure. With “temporary supports” no less.

I wouldn't say it is "full of errors" (especially when compaired to some of the CT sites). L'Ambience Plaza in this reference you may think is an incorrect one, but it DID collapse, and in a progressive manner. I wouldn't quite call that an error, more maybe an inaccurate comparison. You'll have to do better than that to make the claim that 911 myths is full of errors.

Not to mention how funny it is hearing about how another building was a different kind of structure, yet hearing all sorts of CT's constantly compare it to any and every other building on the planet in their own theories.

I remember reading here a link to a guy who said he was going to debunk 911 myths, and his debunking was very weak, flawed, and didn't even address half the stuff on the site!

[Regnad Kcin]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.I guess what I mean by that is this:

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized. To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.)What do you mean by "collapse symmetrically?"

Also, the "contents" were not all pulverized. Of course, our definitions of that word could differ.

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.”I take issue when you write a leading phrase like: "You seem to think it is normal." It's also imprecise.

If there's one consistent bit I've seen in my time perusing the on-line thoughts of 9/11 conventional wisdom doubters, it's the repeated use of some variation of it doesn't seem like.

It doesn't seem like...

- the towers should have fallen the way they did
- fire should've brought down the towers
- terrorists could've pulled this off
- the hole in the Pentagon is the right size for the airplane

And on and on.

I want to say this as clearly as I can. Stop. If you, or anyone, thinks something sinister was afoot with 9/11, you need to present proof. Not conjecture. Not guesswork. Not "holes in the NIST report." Proof that what you, or anyone, say happened, happened. I can easily provide a list of items that would do, if you like.

I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires
2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)
3. Buildings collapse symmetrically
(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)Yes, "the specifics...have different details." So set your wish to construct a fantasy that allows for "the specifics" aside and provide some proof. As I've said on numerous occasions, such a conspiracy would by necessity be the most complex and largest undertaking of its kind in history. So, if that's what happened, finding some proof should be a cakewalk.

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to?
I am not a demolition expert, but I don't need to be to find the flaw above: it is a leading question. Whether or not the way the twins fell resembles in part or in total the way other buildings fall when intentionally or unintentionally demolished is not proof that they did for the reason(s) being suggested.

Let's say you walk into your kitchen and see a broken egg on the floor, its insides splattered. Nearby is a child. Solve the mystery.

I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down.I tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.

Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off.What is your point?

Recently, the Navy intentionally sunk an old battleship off the coast of Florida, in part to create a man-made reef. The process involved detonating demolition charges on board the ship. In a ceremony witnessed by many veterans who served on or were once aboard the craft, including Senator John McCain, the ship went under. Say, maybe it wasn't an iceberg that sank the Titanic after all...

According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?I hate to be a bother about all this, but "sounding right" to us laymen is entirely without merit as a rationale for suggesting alternate and nefarious schemes. The laws of physics are not here to please us.

You know, there was a time when to many people the very idea that the world was round "sounded" preposterous. Why, anyone with eyes could see that it was flat, flat, flat. Many people, amazingly, still hold to this belief. But they don't offer proof.

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.Forgive me, but your analysis has been quite flawed. And your conclusion is hardly "inescapeable."

Also, try as I might, I still can't make out what you mean by the original: "And more importantly, does anybody care?"

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”Good luck with the Internet as far as this topic is concerned; the signal-to-noise ratio is so out of kilter as to be near debilitating.

Oh, and regarding your final line above: there is no "whether or not it was a controlled demolition." It remains "not"...unless proof can be provided to the contrary.

[kookbreaker]

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.


Your experience consists of looking at old films. You are not a demolitionist.


They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line.


And official line kept by every structural engineer and demoltionist in the ENTIRE WORLD? Rather expansive, aren't they?


They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.


That's quite an accusation you have there. Let's see what backs it up.


My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.


The reason they don't do that is because it is the very definition of UNCONTROLLED! Look at the first word in their company's name.


Remember people, you are all saying that you can easily implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.


No, we are saying you can bring down a building in this manner if you don't care about any consequences.


Even if they are big fires. You can't implode a building in this manner.


You cannot implode them but you can bring them down.


Controlled Demolition will further prove my point by never ever employing this much easier and cheaper procedure.


Because they like getting hired to do jobs in the future. That requires them to do it properly.


And remember, it really doesn’t matter how many, or where you cut those steel supports on upper floors. It happened on WTC1 and WTC2, and the damage was very different on each building. Yet the collapse was still completely symmetrical. Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. This is not incredulity. It is sound reasoning.


Nonsense. It assumes that there is a force of shear on the building that would somehow cause them to fall differently. Such a force has not been demonstrated by you.


Remember, it’s not just the fact that an expert says something. Is their reasoning sound? Talk is cheep. If Controlled Demolitions uses the “cut and burn” method to implode buildings in the future, then I will admit that I am wrong on this point.


If CD uses the cut & burn method, they will never work again.


911myths.com is full of errors.


Not really. Certainly this statement has not been proven by you, and the only attempt to debunk it was laughable.


They use the L’Ambience Plaza. I already showed that was a totally different kind of structure. With “temporary supports” no less.

Others have already shown that your comments about the plaza were without merit. It was a collapse that you demanded. Its not our fault you keep moving your goal posts.

[DavidJames]

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner. Does your "experience" involve anything beyond watching videos?

It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition.

When you were called out to provide names for this quote, your response was:They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. You have proven to be as shifty, disingenuous, and intellectually bankrupt as all the others, and to think you showed some promise :rolleyes:

[Polaris]

On that subject, I wounder how it is that another film "Everybody' gotta learn sometime" is able to get away with having a large piece of "Star Wars Episode 3" in it without lawsuit happy Lucas demanding that they remove it or sueing them, especially since they DID charge to attend the premeire of the film. I sent the Lucasfilm publicity department an email bringing this to their attention a few days back, but have not recieved a response.

Too bad we no longer have debtors' prison - I'd love to see Dylan & Co. get shipped off to South Georgia Island or some former British Empire s-hole to do hard labor after the Naudets sue them for millions.

As for Lucas - he may be lawsuit happy, but he's also happy to spread his creations far and wide to people he likes. That's how Family Guy was able to copy the ending of Star Wars in the episode when Peter goes blind. While I'm thinking about it, how did Mel Brooks get away with Spaceballs? Ok, that's enough derailing for now.

[Mutton-Head]

Thank you for the correction Knobby. Yes, I did in fact confuse force for energy. Macky corrected me on that previously, and we continued from there.

No, I would not have rebuffed Galileo. I’m in fact not that sort. Whatever that sort happens to be.
If Galileo had explained to me what stopped the angular momentum when the top of the south tower began to topple, I would have listened. Likewise if the NIST had cared to tackle it, I would have listened.

Anybody care to tackle that one?

[XXX]

As for Lucas - he may be lawsuit happy, but he's also happy to spread his creations far and wide to people he likes. That's how Family Guy was able to copy the ending of Star Wars in the episode when Peter goes blind. While I'm thinking about it, how did Mel Brooks get away with Spaceballs? Ok, that's enough derailing for now.

Sorry, just a bit more derailing...Just like with the Naudets footage, Lucas has a right to selectively let his footage be used with or without sueing anyone. If he won;t let Jay and Silent Bob use the phrase "lightsabers" I don't see why he would let a large piece of his film reside in a dingbat 9/11 conspiracy video, considering the subject matter and the potental bad publicity. My only conclusion is that he must not know about it (not suprising).

Ok, done derailing.

[Mutton-Head]

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

Yeah you're right, I shouldn't have said this one. Some times I do get a little hot under the collar.

I meant I don't believe the word "ludicrous."

[Regnad Kcin]

Try refreshing the page, you must be reading a cached version.Would you please provide a link? http://www.loosechange911.com/ seems to be normal. Perhaps I'm not looking in the proper location.

[kookbreaker]

Thank you for the correction Knobby. Yes, I did in fact confuse force for energy. Macky corrected me on that previously, and we continued from there.

No, I would not have rebuffed Galileo. I’m in fact not that sort. Whatever that sort happens to be.
If Galileo had explained to me what stopped the angular momentum when the top of the south tower began to topple, I would have listened. Likewise if the NIST had cared to tackle it, I would have listened.

Anybody care to tackle that one?

The answer is that there really wasn't any angular momentum to stop. This was not a hinge effect. There were equal and opposite forces on the 'block' that cancelled each other out.

Here, this document has diagrams that explain:

http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/mae543/eischen/docs/BazantWTC.pdf

[Gravy]

Thank you for the correction Knobby. Yes, I did in fact confuse force for energy. Macky corrected me on that previously, and we continued from there.

No, I would not have rebuffed Galileo. I’m in fact not that sort. Whatever that sort happens to be.
If Galileo had explained to me what stopped the angular momentum when the top of the south tower began to topple, I would have listened. Likewise if the NIST had cared to tackle it, I would have listened.

Anybody care to tackle that one?
Gravity. As you can clearly see in any of the close-up videos or still images of the south tower collapse, the top's first –and uninterrupted – move was down. And I'm sure you're aware that the building was designed to have the exterior columns carry most of its weight.

How about tackling all of the questions posed to you in the previous posts, questions you raised with your poorly-considered arguments?

[XXX]

Would you please provide a link? http://www.loosechange911.com/ seems to be normal. Perhaps I'm not looking in the proper location.

You should see some light grey text underneth where it says Loose Change 2nd edition. The text should say "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers." Click on that text.

[Gravy]

Would you please provide a link? http://www.loosechange911.com/ seems to be normal. Perhaps I'm not looking in the proper location.
Regnad, when I click that link I get the Loose Change header, then "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers." Clicking that phrase brings up the copyright infringement doc. Here's the direct link:
http://www.loosechange911.com/main_naudet.html

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm sorry, XXX, but I don't see it. I'm going to feel like a boob if it's right there in front of me.

ETA: Thanks, Gravy!

[Manny]

Would you please provide a link? http://www.loosechange911.com/ seems to be normal. Perhaps I'm not looking in the proper location.Serious? When I go there, the entire screen is blank, except for the following text, centered and in white:
LOOSE CHANGE
2ND EDITION

Happy Memorial Day
From the Naudet BrothersClicking on either text block connects to the letter from the lawyers (http://www.loosechange911.com/main_naudet.html).

ETA that you bastids type too quickly.


ETA more: Now waitaminute here. Wait just a confounded minute. These guys are willing to take on the entire United States government, people whom they beleive are so ruthless that they'll kill 3,000 people in America's busiest commercial center and at the center of the military but they'll cease and desist on the basis of a letter from a bunch of weenie lawyers? What the hell kind of truth-seekers are these guys, anyway?

[Gravy]

Yeah you're right, I shouldn't have said this one. Some times I do get a little hot under the collar.

I meant I don't believe the word "ludicrous."
Well that's what these experts said, so what's your point? For the third time, can you cite demolitions experts who say different?

ETA:
Ludicrous: absurd: incongruous; inviting ridicule; "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework"; "that's a cockeyed idea"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical answer"; "a contribution so small as to be laughable"; "it is ludicrous to call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull children was ridiculous" ?wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[XXX]

What the hell kind of truth-seekers are these guys, anyway?

The usual kind. $$$$$$$$$

[Polaris]

Sorry, just a bit more derailing...Just like with the Naudets footage, Lucas has a right to selectively let his footage be used with or without sueing anyone. If he won;t let Jay and Silent Bob use the phrase "lightsabers" I don't see why he would let a large piece of his film reside in a dingbat 9/11 conspiracy video, considering the subject matter and the potental bad publicity. My only conclusion is that he must not know about it (not suprising).

Ok, done derailing.

How about someone giving him the heads up? Which video was it used in? I'll be happy to send the word his way.

How much you want to bet that if Dylan & Co. have to apply for bankruptcy, they'll blame Bush for knowing about it in advance - the evidence is his new bankruptcy reform law.

[Gravy]

How about someone giving him the heads up? Which video was it used in? I'll be happy to send the word his way.

How much you want to bet that if Dylan & Co. have to apply for bankruptcy, they'll blame Bush for knowing about it in advance - the evidence is his new bankruptcy reform law.
XXX did that dirty work:http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1666897&postcount=500

[Regnad Kcin]

Serious? When I go there, the entire screen is blank, except for the following text, centered and in white:Clicking on either text block connects to the letter from the lawyers (http://www.loosechange911.com/main_naudet.html).Yup, I'm serious. It continues to be the normal, fully-operational home page, without any Memorial Day greeting. I can do a screen capture, if you like. (Er, how do you do that again?)

[Polaris]

XXX did that dirty work:http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1666897&postcount=500

Oh. Ok. Good.

[Gravy]

Yup, I'm serious. It continues to be the normal, fully-operational home page, without any Memorial Day greeting. I can do a screen capture, if you like. (Er, how do you do that again?)
They got to Regnad! One skeptic at a time...

[XXX]

Sounds like a cache issue Regnad.

As for the Star Wars thing, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to have more than one person send them a message. The place I used is http://www.lucasfilm.com/press/contact/
and I sent it to Lucasfilm publicity. Be sure to add that they DID in fact charge people to see the premire of this film, 10 bucks a head! That makes a difference in legal terms. (The name of the film is "Everyboy's gotta learn sometime")

The answer is that there really wasn't any angular momentum to stop. This was not a hinge effect. There were equal and opposite forces on the 'block' that cancelled each other out.

Here, this document has diagrams that explain:

http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/mae543/eischen/docs/BazantWTC.pdf

Another article that has a more "Layman's terms" explination of this same issue (with the same heading) can be found here...http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category

Under the section "Why did they not fall like a tree?"

[Mutton-Head]

Well, I guess I have to admit, that no, I can't produce any demolition experts. So, my opinions on this matter are just “gut reactions.” Not really worth a whole lot.

I do feel that the government/NIST conclusions were the result of inadequate work, hasty conclusions, and too many assumptions, many of which I’ve brought up. But, it would be a mistake for me to like-wise make a case based upon assumptions. (A battle of assumptions, or, “my assumptions are better than your assumptions.” Ha ha ha ha.. ) So back to the books.

I have the paper by Bazant and Zhou. Likewise, in my opinion, assumptions that I don’t agree with. And it was finished a whole three weeks after the destruction, with no access to physical evidence.

As I said, back to the books.

[Regnad Kcin]

Sounds like a cache issue Regnad.Cleared it all away and tried again. Still, when I visit using my normal browser, I get their regular homepage. However, using a different browser nets me the "Happy Memorial Day" message everyone's been referring to. Odd, no?

[Regnad Kcin]

Now waitaminute here. Wait just a confounded minute. These guys are willing to take on the entire United States government, people whom they beleive are so ruthless that they'll kill 3,000 people in America's busiest commercial center and at the center of the military but they'll cease and desist on the basis of a letter from a bunch of weenie lawyers? What the hell kind of truth-seekers are these guys, anyway?I believe the appropriate term is "paper tiger."

[Landru]

Cleared it all away and tried again. Still, when I visit using my normal browser, I get their regular homepage. However, using a different browser nets me the "Happy Memorial Day" message everyone's been referring to. Odd, no?

Pop on the tinfoil beanie, Regnad. It's obvious that Microsoft (or Mozilla, or Netscape or...) are part of the plot.

[Pardalis]

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.

Wow.

[Regnad Kcin]

"Wow" in what way? Good? Bad? Drug-inspired?

[Pardalis]

Well, I guess I have to admit, that no, I can't produce any demolition experts. So, my opinions on this matter are just “gut reactions.” Not really worth a whole lot.

I do feel that the government/NIST conclusions were the result of inadequate work, hasty conclusions, and too many assumptions, many of which I’ve brought up. But, it would be a mistake for me to like-wise make a case based upon assumptions. (A battle of assumptions, or, “my assumptions are better than your assumptions.” Ha ha ha ha.. ) So back to the books.

I have the paper by Bazant and Zhou. Likewise, in my opinion, assumptions that I don’t agree with. And it was finished a whole three weeks after the destruction, with no access to physical evidence.

As I said, back to the books.

I couldn't agree more.

[Pardalis]

"Wow" in what way? Good? Bad? Indeterminate?

Good of course LOL

I'm amased at your verve and clarity. You really nailed it. The entire post was superb.:D

[karim]

I do feel that the government/NIST conclusions were the result of inadequate work, hasty conclusions, and too many assumptions.

Yes, thats what governments do. I'm sure there is real corruption and high level incompetence too. To expose it, cooking up teories that are like movie scripts isn't the way to go and only add to the mess and confusion.

[karim]

I really like this part in the copyright infringement letter to Dylan.


Furthermore, it is clear that your intent is not to spread a controversial message but rather to profit, given your aggressive marketing campaign and your sales of the DVD version of the film for $17.95.


I would add ten smilies highfiving but I gather some don't like them.

[Trifikas]

over-simplification attempt by me, number 22...

would the lattice-work that was each of the floors provide a pull towards the center when weight landed on it? I'm thinking that if you tied a rope between two polls, and pulled down on the rope, the polls would bend towards each other. Or a spider-web anchored on branches, if a weight was applied to the web, the branches would be pulled inwards.

Similarly, when the mass hits each floor during the collapse, would the lattice apply an inward force to the walls, however brief, for each impact? and would it be enough to keep the collapse reasonably straight, or wouldn't it really have an effect?

[Regnad Kcin]

I overlooked something in this small passage when responding to the forum member in my post #550:

...To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.No one should be "guessing" at all.

First off, the default position in this case will be that airplanes collided with two buildings, setting off a chain of events that led to their destruction. Why is it the default? The process corresponded to simple, unextraordinary processes.

Now, it is not enough to just challenge that position in order to negate it, as so many alternate scenario proponents seem to believe. It reminds me of what Arthur Conan Doyle, writing as Sherlock Holmes, said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Thing is, nothing that happened on 9/11 was impossible or even extraordinary from a physical or human behavioral standpoint (the latter meaning to indicate acts of war by an enemy group).

Here's what's extraordinary: Countless people -- Americans -- conspired to commit indiscriminate mass-murder on thousands of their fellow citizens, as well as those of numerous other countries. They did this in secret, not only during the planning stages, but the set-up, the execution, and the post-op follow-through. In addition, rather than, say, simply plant and detonate a highly destructive bomb in a highly populated area, these countless planners and technicians took on the task of masking their efforts so as to look like something else entirely (hijacked airplanes, building demolitions, etc.) not only complicating their plans, but in doing so also increasing the risk of their discovery, be it in regard to the human component or the physical crime scene debris. Furthermore, these planners and technicians apparently performed this convoluted operation (which, it should be added would cost an astounding amount of money not only to carry out, but also in expenditures of hush-money to all participants) in a busy metropolitan area in order to further their goals for world domination, as a prelude to Part 2: the correspondingly very simple act of planting evidence of weapons of mass destruction in remote regions of Iraq as a way to prove justification and continued cover for their efforts.

Oh, wait.

[Gravy]

No one should be "guessing" at all.
Great posts, Regnad. Thanks for being a weapon of mass instruction.

[Regnad Kcin]

Gravy, that's high praise coming from one who's made the kind of effort you have in regard to this topic. Thanks.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I really like this part in the copyright infringement letter to Dylan.





I would add ten smilies highfiving but I gather some don't like them.

You should post to the LC boards then.

I knwo Roxdog over there is a huge fan of of the "50 ROFL smilies in a row" post.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's a conspiracy theory for you:

The Scholars for 9-11 site lists the following members:

Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)
Attorney at Law, Former Deputy Attorney General

John C. Austin (AM)
Juris Doctorate; Music publishing; Radio broadcasting

James Hill (FM)
Intellectual property attorney, Radiology, USC School of Medicine

Richard T. Jeroloman (AM)
International law; Intellectual property; Electronic engineering


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Surely the Scholars for 9-11 Truth are aware of the most well known 9-11 truth video. They have more than enough legal expertise to recognize immedeately the trouble Avery & Co. were in for from thier unauthorized use of the Naudet video footage.

So why didn't the scholars alert thier fellow truthseekers? Why did they stand idly by while Avery & co. set themselves up for a potential 2.1 million dollar legal judgement?

My theory? This band of egotistical university profs and lawyers were upset and jealous that this bunch of punk-ass kids not even out of college yet upstaged them and stole thier thunder over the internet. Not oly do I believe the scholars LIHOPed LC's current legal troubles (Let It Happen On Pourpose) but I believe that the scholars probablt MIHOPed it (Made It Happen On Pourpose, the scholars alerted the Naudets to the intellectual property theft). Given the truth movements notorious habit of eating its own, MIHOP is the most likely scenario.

As this is a conspiracy theory, I will simply assume this is the case without additional research. I will review evidence submitted wich contradicts the theory, but reserve the right to ignore it at my convenience.

[Shrinker]

About the lawsuit:

First of all isn't it hilarious how the hero of the movement filled his pants and pulled down his entire site instantly? He's got three days plus the weekend to comply with their demands, and none of them refers to his T-shirt sales, or blogs or whatever. What a chicken. Wonder if he got a good night's sleep.

Secondly, once he's complied, will he get sued anyway? The thing is all over the net, folks are showing it in bars, the damage is done, the brothers are rightly peeved. Anyone seen similar cases?

I also notice the letter says the LC script claims the footage was paid for. I'm not likely to watch the thing to confirm it but it would be a nice deliberate lie to highlight in the Viewers Guide.

Thoughts on Dylan Avery's 'career.'... I do have some experience with real documentary makers. A $2.1M+ lawsuit brought on entirely by their own blunders would likely finish their careers permanetly. Now poor little Dylan's got to be worrying about where the next lawsuit is coming from. There's no way he bought worldwide publication rights for all of his footage on his 5 figure budget, especially consisering the nature of his film. LC3 is gonna be short. My guess is somebody like some alternative media outlet will give him some cash to do a new project. It'll suck big-time and he'll have to go find a job.

Lastly, has anyone told the Joe's Apartment people?

Oh sorry, one more thing... http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/3617447977bd34533.gif

[WildCat]

Thoughts on Dylan Avery's 'career.'... I do have some experience with real documentary makers. A $2.1M+ lawsuit brought on entirely by their own blunders would likely finish their careers permanetly.
That will be the least of his worries if the libel, slander, and defamation of character lawsuits start rolling in.

[Gravy]

About the lawsuit:

First of all isn't it hilarious how the hero of the movement filled his pants and pulled down his entire site instantly? He's got three days plus the weekend to comply with their demands, and none of them refers to his T-shirt sales, or blogs or whatever. What a chicken. Wonder if he got a good night's sleep.

Secondly, once he's complied, will he get sued anyway? The thing is all over the net, folks are showing it in bars, the damage is done, the brothers are rightly peeved. Anyone seen similar cases?...
My guess is that they took the whole site down because in several places Avery bragged about how good the DVD sales were. Recently he had a blog post that said they were turning over orders & fulfillment to a third party because they couldn't keep up with the volume. Plus, he always encourages people to burn as many copies as possible and distribute them. In one of his recent radio interviews he said that through Google Video, over 2 million people now know "the truth." I assume that's just a measure of page views, though. And Avery told the Village Voice a few months ago that his people had distributed over 50,000 DVDs. That statement may come back to haunt him.

I'm sure there wouldn't be any suit if they comply with the terms of the infringement notice. It's unlikely that Louder Than Words has any assets worth going after. I think the interesting thing is what effect this will have on the next "LC" version, which is supposedly going to be called "Loose Change Final Cut." :eek: I assume that most of the other footage has been pirated, so will they be able to buy the rights for everything, will it be released as a free version only, or will we instead soon see "Loose Change" as a graphic novel?

edited to add further musings

[WildCat]

Looks like we jumped the gun gloating about the lawsuit against Avery & Co. Legal expert (and judge?) jackchit has weighed in (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=60):

I have to say this is a storm in a tee-cup, as for the naudet brothers they do not have a frogs leg to stand on.
Firstly I'm sure that if they were serious about bringing some sort of litigation against our boys then they would do it straight away,
secondly this footage is a matter of public interest and (I'm assuming) was a piece of evidence used in the 911 commission report therefore if push came to shove louder than words would be able to apply retrospectivly for release of the footage under the freedom of information act without just cause for the application to be denied, as the American administration have always maintained this was an attack on America therefore all its citizens, Dylan and co are then as American citizens the victims of these attacks also, under the freedom of information act if you are a victim, then any information pertaining to the crime commited against you becomes your property to do with as you wish. So in conclusion the footage of the entire naudet brothers doc is the property of all the citizens of the United States, correct me if i'm wrong bit Jason, Dylan & Korey are US citizens so they have been using thier own property to make this doc...... case dismissed.

Trust me this will not amount to a hill of beans, but if it did then give me a sofa to sleep on and i will come over and represent you for free.

Love, Jack
Foiled again by the geniuses at Loose Change!

Excuse me while I snicker uncontrollably...

[Shrinker]

I'm sure there wouldn't be any suit if they comply with the terms of the infringement notice. It's unlikely that Louder Than Words has any assets worth going after. I think the interesting thing is what effect this will have on the next "LC" version, which is supposedly going to be called "Loose Change Final Cut." :eek: I assume that most of the other footage has been pirated, so will they be able to buy the rights for everything, will it be released as a free version only, or will we instead soon see "Loose Change" as a graphic novel?

These things usually don't have a fixed fee. The price is often determined by who you are, who you're showing it to, and what you're tying to say with it. I suspect if all the other copyright owners find out he made his name and fortune first, then only asked permission when he got caught out, the fees would be increased considerably.

Of course I don't know how the owners could possibly find out such a thing. I wonder if some wag has compliled a list of who owns each shot. Just for investigative purposes.
:rolleyes:

[Gravy]

Of course I don't know how the owners could possibly find out such a thing. I wonder if some wag has compliled a list of who owns each shot. Just for investigative purposes.
:rolleyes:
I don't know who would have done such a thing.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790447996e1b7d6b.jpg

[Darat]

Yah but the real reason they are doing this:

"I was talking to a friend and he said the Naudet Bros. are Freemasons, anyone else hear that?" (Faithleaper (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=60))

[Z]

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. The NIST report is, in fact, a fairly accurate assessment.

In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically,

You don't have to explain why water is wet, after all.

And they hardly came down 'symmetrically' - look at the footprint of the damage. Several nearby buildings were destroyed, and not in a uniform manner.

and how all of the contents were pulverized.

They weren't. Many photos exist showing steel beams and girders and large fragments... Much of the content was pulverized, yes... but that's what happens when buildings that large fall down.

To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.)

Because you are wrong.

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires

Though rarely in steel -only cored buildings. In those high-rise tower fires where reinforced concrete was not present (the upper stories of that one hotel, for example), the steel failed and collapse occured.

2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)

Lower velocities, less potent fuels, less powerful impacts, different building structure.

3. Buildings collapse symmetrically

Including buildings collapsing due to fire. (That we have not seen this with the WTC will surely be ignored, though)

(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)

And the devil, as they say, is in the details.

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to?

I'm no expert, but I have known a few, and assisted in several demo projects. The answer is, ABSOLUTELY NOT! The collateral damage was absolutely intolerable if this had been a controlled demolition. No demo expert in the world is going to tell you this was a text-book example. If anything, it looks like what it was - a collapse due to massive damage.

Any fool who brings down a building deliberately like THAT - would be blacklisted. Quite possibly internationally.

I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down.

By 'straight' you mean 'spreading collateral damage over a wide area'...?

And how, exactly, would you expect it to come down? Topple over like a domino? Like a rigid tree trunk?

Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

That sounds right for how to cause a building to collapse. However, the building did NOT implode. Essentially, it pancaked - causing explosions throughout the structure, ejecting material across a wide area.

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

I care - I am deeply concerned as to how you can choose to be so willfully ignorant. Even if they used controlled demo to fake a collapse, I expect it would have went off a LOT neater than it did.

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

A conclusion from ignorance is irrelelvant.

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

And that's the key problem. GIGO, as they say.

Hint: find a demolitions expert, and have a sit-down. Talk to some real experts in field, not some wanna-be amateur detectives. The Internet is a great place if you want cheat codes and scummy porn, but a lousy place to start an investigation into complex subjects that you have no grasp of.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”

Why? You have nothing useful to contribute.

[60hzxtl]

Well, now we have an area that I have a little knowledge in.

If, 'like, hey man, Dylan Avery' has infringed on the copyright, then the affected party owns the original and all of the copies and is within their rights to seize all of the copies.

When I suggested the easiest way to counter LC2 was to take their film and over narrate it with Gravy's wonderful blast, I suggested it as the quickest, simplest, and ultimately cheapest form to get the word out that LC2 was bilge water. All that would be required was to pay the owners of the original clips since LC did not shoot anything original. As a film maker, I assumed that these kids did that. I assumed that they knew that. Their soundtrack went through my head like a nail -- does anyone know if that is 'original' or is that copyrighted music, because unless they paid and cleared the rights, that's stolen too.

But then, since the government passed the laws to protect copyrighted material, and its up to the owner to protect it, it must be part of the conspiracy!

If nothing else, this proves that 'like, hey man, Dylan' does not even know his craft, much less science.

And bravo to the Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein & Selz, the law firm, 'cause they're not 'just asking questions man.' They demanded action. Provable action.

[Gravy]

The whole idea of copyright protection is retarded. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4831353) Only a career bitch would try to enforce a copyright on a video of a natural disaster. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4817395) Anyway, everyone knows that Jules Naudet staged the footage. (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm) He didn't even bother to do a little postproduction work to make that drone aircraft (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4817884) look like a 747. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4817718) Risking his life was just a clever way to cover up the fact that he was in on the plot. (http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200510) Who put him up to it? The Jooos, of course. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4824917) And we all know that Cheney had a hand in sending the notice of copyright infringement. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4827215) We Loosers may have to unleash our secret, ancient Chinese torture: the death of a thousand e-mails (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4828309) upon the one remaining, fearful globalist (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4828373). Keep in mind the ulterior motives of these people as the situation unfolds. Seriously. Do it. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4828607)

p.s. Has anyone seen coverage of this story on CNN? (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4818073)

[Stellafane]

Looks like we jumped the gun gloating about the lawsuit against Avery & Co. Legal expert (and judge?) jackchit has weighed in (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=60):

Foiled again by the geniuses at Loose Change!

Excuse me while I snicker uncontrollably...

Gee, jackchit sure places a lot of faith in the legal system of a country he claims to believe is run by murderers. He assumes that said country will grant his clients a fair trial, even though it's overwhelmingly in the government's best interest that they be found guilty and the distribution of the LC video stopped.

So this government can plan the most massive and convoluted conspiracy in history, but can't fix a lousy copyright trial (which would involve a conspiracy of a mere dozen people, 13 if you included the judge)? Makes you wonder what jackchit really believes.

[Belz...]

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

That's why it's called luck!

Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos. Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized.

You can tell just by watching the video, I summize ?

[Belz...]

I'm not much of a drinker myself, wich makes me kind of an oddity in Québec. But I do swear alot, I guess it balances out.

I don't drink at all, and I compensate by swearing even more.

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

That's like saying that your experience in pulling teeth out of people's mouths tells you that a particular tooth shouldn't have fallen on its own like that.

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.

Talk is cheap, bucko.

My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

And there you have it! No controlled demolition.

It happened on WTC1 and WTC2, and the damage was very different on each building.

Looked damn similar to me.

Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. This is not incredulity. It is sound reasoning.

No... it's simplistic, grade-school level reasoning because you see only two factors in the collapse of two of the tallest buildings in the world.

Remember, it’s not just the fact that an expert says something. Is their reasoning sound? Talk is cheep.

Indeed, it is "cheep", like I said.

[60hzxtl]

Wait! 9/11 was a NATURAL disaster? Why didn't We see that!

If I can't copyright what I shoot, why would I bother to shoot it?

Evan Fairbanks who shot the second plane hitting the WTC was using a camera, and tape, that did not belong to him. He was a freelancer working for Trinity Church that day, and grabbed the camera and went to film.

By rights, the tape should have belonged to Trinity - but Trinity's lawyers threw up their hands. Fairbanks made a bundle selling news footage for something he risked his life to get. I think he screwed his Trinity, but nobody asked me.

I love a world when everything is free, and public domain. The difference between priceless and worthless!

[Belz...]

Well, I guess I have to admit, that no, I can't produce any demolition experts. So, my opinions on this matter are just “gut reactions.” Not really worth a whole lot.

I do feel that the government/NIST conclusions were the result of inadequate work, hasty conclusions, and too many assumptions, many of which I’ve brought up. But, it would be a mistake for me to like-wise make a case based upon assumptions.

You're making progress ? Woah. Neat.

[dubfan]

If I'm not mistaken, though, it looks like all the Naudet bros. want is to have their footage removed from Loose Change and the supporting materials (websites, etc.). It doesn't look (right now) like they're going after damages. If Dylan just yanks the Naudet imagery ... he can still keep distributing LC, correct?

This is satisfying but I think it's a short-lived thing. I suspect the Naudets are just appalled that they're associated with this crap and are trying to extricate their work from it. It doesn't appear from the letter that they have any agenda other than that. I'm sure the assets of LTW are not worth trying to go after.

I also think it's just the start of legal troubles for Dylan and possibly others in the "Truth" movement. It baffles me that some of the estates of some of the high-profile people implicated in that film haven't come forward and sued for libel.

ETA: Hmm... just thought about that. Can an estate of someone who's deceased sue for libel? Interesting legal question. I suppose you could say the libel reflects not only on the deceased but on the estate as well.

ETA2: Of course, this opens up the whole can of worms of rights for Dylan so it may be more complicated than that. He's probably got plenty of other timebombs ticking in there as well he'll need to resolve.

[Gravy]

Wait! 9/11 was a NATURAL disaster? Why didn't We see that!
That must be why Mutton-Head posted those pictures of earthquake-damaged buildings. He knows that not only can the globalists control the weather, they've developed focused-earthquake technology!

[karim]

and the plot thickens...

by TheTruthI wonder if Bush watched the first plane strike the North Tower on closed cicuit TV as the Naudet brothers captured it?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=90

[dubfan]

He's probably got plenty of other timebombs ticking in there as well he'll need to resolve.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that the whole "Loose Change" phenomenon will have been destroyed due to controlled demolition.

[Regnad Kcin]

Good of course LOL

I'm amased at your verve and clarity. You really nailed it. The entire post was superb.:DThank you, friend. It's kind of you to say so.

[joseph k.]

"Exactly...LC has captured the minds of the young which is far more dangerous than anything AJ or VK can do."(DemolitionCrew-LC Forum)


cap·ture (kăp'chər) pronunciation
tr.v., -tured, -tur·ing, -tures.

1. To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.
2. To gain possession or control of, as in a game or contest: capture the queen in chess; captured the liberal vote.
3. To attract and hold: tales of adventure that capture the imagination.
4. To succeed in preserving in lasting form: capture a likeness in a painting.

Yup.

[Regnad Kcin]

Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091...For giggles, I stopped by there again. Instead I come away sad.

[delphi_ote]

For giggles, I stopped by there again. Instead I come away sad.
I actually made a post, just to see what happens. I can't believe this is still going on.

[60hzxtl]

Delphi,

Let me say thanks for starting this. In the universe of CT's you are Copernicus.

[60hzxtl]

Originally Posted by Landru :
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091...



The great thing is that it confirms that they are even greater experts on law, public domain, fair usage, copyright, and PAYING FOR THE USE OF OTHERS WORK, greater experts at that than they are at science.

They're grammer ain's so hot either.

[CptColumbo]

Originally Posted by Landru :
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091...



The great thing is that it confirms that they are even greater experts on law, public domain, fair usage, copyright, and PAYING FOR THE USE OF OTHERS WORK, greater experts at that than they are at science.

They're grammer ain's so hot either.
I have to partially disagree with you there. While some seem to grasp the difference between public domain and copyrighted material, others are grasping at straws that lead to a larger cover-up. Although, there seems to be a number of posts from stalwarts who admit that the producers acted unwisely in charging for the DVD and admitance to viewing.

It does beg the question: if someone did use material and interviews from LC as the basis for a counter doc. Would the LC producers try to prevent it using the same tactics?

[The_Fire]

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."


OUCH!. :eye-poppi:D
And the independent film/documentary people I've worked for as an editor/postproduction producer wondered why the first thing I told them were to make sure they had cleared the copyright of music and pictures they hadn't done themselves AND had the paper to prove it!:D

[joseph k.]

It does beg the question: if someone did use material and interviews from LC as the basis for a counter doc. Would the LC producers try to prevent it using the same tactics?


If this wasn't rhetorical, I'd have to say YES. They would refer to it as a victory for "truth", like taking down movie website forums with spam.

[CptColumbo]

OUCH!. :eye-poppi:D
And the independent film/documentary people I've worked for as an editor/postproduction producer wondered why the first thing I told them were to make sure they had cleared the copyright of music and pictures they hadn't done themselves AND had the paper to prove it!:D
I remember my days as a TV news cameraman with the person with a clipboard behind me, ready to get people to sign agreements to use their likeness.

[XXX]

I do have some experience with this. The basic copyright law is "You shoot it, you own it", with some exceptions. In the example from 60hzxtl, the footage belongs to othe individual probably because he was as you said "freelance". If I hire someone to shoot pictures of a Volcano for me, and while they are there they catch a helicopter crash, I don't own that footage. But if say, CNN sends one of thier cameramen on the assignment instead, then CNN would own that footage I believe.

These public domain arguements are very weak, and even if they declared this footage public domain now (which they won't) it still wasn't when they made and sold their film. They are hosed here, big no-no to sell something that has copyrighted material on in that doesn't belong to you!

[The_Fire]

In one of the funniest LC posts yet, "Left-Wing Humanist" advocates harassing the law firm that sent Avery the copyright infringement notice:


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4820459

That smells like another lawsuit. Something in the direction of "Inciting threats and conspiracy to cause harrasment and bodily harm" perhaps?

[The_Fire]

I remember my days as a TV news cameraman with the person with a clipboard behind me, ready to get people to sign agreements to use their likeness.

Oh yeah, that cute little slip of paper called a "release form". I remember them rather vividly from an informecial I did for Århus County. It involved a litter of mini-humans (the socalled "kids") in one of those parkingspaces the adults put them in (a socalled "kindergarten") and having to clear every one of the little buggers with their parents.

[The_Fire]

Wait! 9/11 was a NATURAL disaster? Why didn't We see that!

If I can't copyright what I shoot, why would I bother to shoot it?

Evan Fairbanks who shot the second plane hitting the WTC was using a camera, and tape, that did not belong to him. He was a freelancer working for Trinity Church that day, and grabbed the camera and went to film.

By rights, the tape should have belonged to Trinity - but Trinity's lawyers threw up their hands. Fairbanks made a bundle selling news footage for something he risked his life to get. I think he screwed his Trinity, but nobody asked me.

I love a world when everything is free, and public domain. The difference between priceless and worthless!


I swear, I could KISS you right now! So pucker up!:kiss1:

[delphi_ote]

Delphi,

Let me say thanks for starting this. In the universe of CT's you are Copernicus.
I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species.

[R.Mackey]

But perhaps we are at an impasse…..

Yes, we are at an impasse, at least in terms of convincing you, because (a) you reject our results for reasons of "intuition," and (b) you haven't done any actual work to challenge our results.

It's very simple. You said you didn't believe gravity alone could have done that much damage -- a belief that, I might add, is hampered by a fundamental confusion on the concept of energy, and unsupported by any relevant training or experience.

I didn't know the answer either, so I ran a brief calculation and showed that the gravitational energy was staggering, vastly greater than "explosives" under any remotely credible scenario.

There's nothing wrong with asking the question. Ignoring the answer, on the other hand, is not useful.

Either your "intuition" or my calculation is wrong. I might have made a mistake, which is why I showed all of my work. So find the mistake. Ask any expert you like. I'll be glad to defend and clarify my calculations.

But if you cannot find a mistake, then you are wrong. There is no third alternative.

There's no shame in being wrong, if you learn from your mistakes. Give it a try.

[delphi_ote]

I swear, I could KISS you right now! So pucker up!:kiss1:
Me next! Me next!

[The_Fire]

Me next! Me next! *Picks up a "TomCat" tamer bat*
I*wham*Dont*wham*Think*wham*So*wham*Delphi_Ote

Does anyone have need for a slightly broken bat with a nice red color and Delphi's teeth imbedded in it?

[chipmunk stew]

Oh yeah, that cute little slip of paper called a "release form". I remember them rather vividly from an informecial I did for Århus County. It involved a litter of mini-humans (the socalled "kids") in one of those parkingspaces the adults put them in (a socalled "kindergarten") and having to clear every one of the little buggers with their parents.Makes me wonder: did they secure a release from the people they filmed in their extra footage--the fireman, the widow, etc.

[delphi_ote]

*Picks up a "TomCat" tamer bat*
I*wham*Dont*wham*Think*wham*So*wham*Delphi_Ote

Does anyone have need for a slightly broken bat with a nice red color and Delphi's teeth imbedded in it?
*through broken teeth and blood* I guess I forgot to say please?
:Banane39:

[The_Fire]

*through broken teeth and blood* I guess I forgot to say please?
:Banane39:
Something like that.

ETA: Or maybe I've just seen too much Tom and Jerry lately.;)

[chipmunk stew]

"911research" has put out another critique of LC2 called Sifting Through Loose Change (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html). Its index page contains a link to Gravy's critique (and I think it contains information and images directly from the document):

Because of its flaws, [Loose Change] is an easy target for debunkers defending the official story that the attack was the work of Islamic fundamentalists. One example is the the very detailed debunking of the entire video entitled 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide: And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html). Unfortunately, many people -- perhaps a vast majority of Americans -- are likely to dismiss the film's vitally important conclusions because of the many errors it makes along the way. Not surprisingly, Loose Change is being exploited by apologists for the official story to reinforce the stereotype that has long been used to by the mainstream to media to bludgeon the 9/11 Truth Movement (http://911review.com/disinfo/ipress/index.html): that all challenges to the official story are the product of irrational "conspiracy theorists."

edit: I guess I should make it clear that this critique is from a rival CT perspective, so its character is quite different from that of Gravy's piece.

[Ersby]

"911research" has put out another critique of LC2 called Sifting Through Loose Change (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html).
It's odd that they only explain their conclusions when they decide something in Loose Change is erroneous, but not when they think something is correct.

[Pardalis]

the film's vitally important conclusions

How can one reach any good conclusion when the data is flawed. For *** sakes! They admit themselves the film is wrong!:mad:

These CT guys are NUTS! NUTS!

[joseph k.]

Is this effort akin to starting small fires around a bigger fire in an attempt to divert it, or what?

This site had no problem acknowledging flaws in LC2 but it seems they don't mind continuing to preach total pulverization and controlled demo. (I am aware it's another CT site) When I clicked the link to see the proof of this complete pulverization it brought me to another debunked point, the stand down of NORAD, instead of the pulverization pages. This stuff is quite frustrating. How are people buying these "facts" mixed in with complete ignorance, unprofessional investigation and cherry-picked data? ARGHHHHH. Is it possible to write enough debunking guides to even get 10% of the people who buy into this to step back and think critically?


ETA: At least Gravy's work and others in this forum are doing some damage, like delphi_ote, this gives me some hope.

[Gravy]

"911research" has put out another critique of LC2 called Sifting Through Loose Change (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html). Its index page contains a link to Gravy's critique (and I think it contains information and images directly from the document):
"Because of its flaws, [Loose Change] is an easy target for debunkers defending the official story that the attack was the work of Islamic fundamentalists. One example is the the very detailed debunking of the entire video entitled 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide: And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, many people -- perhaps a vast majority of Americans -- are likely to dismiss the film's vitally important conclusions because of the many errors it makes along the way. Not surprisingly, Loose Change is being exploited by apologists for the official story to reinforce the stereotype that has long been used to by the mainstream to media to bludgeon the 9/11 Truth Movement: that all challenges to the official story are the product of irrational 'conspiracy theorists.'"

edit: I guess I should make it clear that this critique is from a rival CT perspective, so its character is quite different from that of Gravy's piece.
Hilarious! Everyone in the "Truth Movement" criticizes "Loose Change" for being so flawed. Meanwhile, their own work is just as flawed. They just haven't put it on video (probably couldn't afford the rights).

I love the idea that somehow Avery & co. came up with valid conclusions in the end, although every one of their arguments is wrong. I did a new count of the b.s. in "Loose Change" recently, and came up with 115 statements that are false or based on false premises, and 156 misleading statements. I put these in a nice list for people who don't have the patience to read my whole critique. I was going to release a final revised critique this weekend, but I'll wait until it's apparent where this copyright thing is headed.

Avery could have avoided the copyright hassle by making a 10-second video that said "We think the government planned, executed, and covered up the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This statement is dedicated to the lives we lost on 9/11. The end." I feel the same way about Mutton Head's posts: if you're only here to express an opinion, please keep it to one post, not 40.

This copyright thing should be a relief to 911truth.org and 911 Scholars for Truth. They've been itching for Dylan Avery to go away so that their message can be heard. I know I'd like to be able to focus more on the misinformarion spread by the rest of the "Truth Movement."

From the trivia department: Since I've been looking into 9/11 CTs, I've come across exactly four people who made it a point to indignantly state that they've been "researching" this stuff for a long time. They are thesyntaxera, Christophera, geggy, and Avery. That reminds me of the poll taken before the presidential election of 2004 that showed that the more people watched Fox News, the less they knew about what was really going on in the world.

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Avery speaks!

let me respond to all 7 pages at once:

1) i "threw the movie together with other people's footage" because i was making a movie, in my spare time, which I was under the impression no one would like or want to watch. then, people started asking if i was going to sell copies. so, i put it on sale.
2) i sold the first loose change for 15 bucks, including shipping. i only charged more for the 2nd edition because we spent almost $5,000 making it, including a hard drive which crashed a week before the movie was supposed to be done
3) we donate back to the movement constantly. i dont like publicizing it because i dont do it to prove anything, i do it to give back and to share my success. i just gave 911blogger and revereradionetwork $300 each, i gave Russ Pickering of PentagonResearch $500, and, oh yea, we mail out at LEAST 20 or 30 free dvds a day for servicemen, family members, or people who beg us for one. not to mention we NEVER sell DVDs at screenings, we always give them out.
4) we are not going away. thanks to the success of the 2nd edition, we've had a number of people come to us with both footage and evidence. Loose Change Final Cut will be 100% legal and trust me, it's going to blow the 9/11 movement out of the water.

back to work with me...
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=180

The man has no shame.

[The_Fire]

*shakes head*
That really doesn't matter when it concerns copyright. He's going to get hammered if he doesn't comply.

[Darat]

Gravy have you made the links to your docs available via the Links Manager?

[RandFan]

I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species. Sorry folks, I've been AWOL. Life has a way of impinging itself in a way we don't always want it to. I think John Lennon said it best. "Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans." In any event my hats off to the stalwarts.

[geggy]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink

[delphi_ote]

Sorry folks, I've been AWOL. Life has a way of impinging itself in a way we don't always want it to. I think John Lennon said it best. "Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans." In any event my hats off to the stalwarts.
How could I have missed RandFan in my list? Good to hear from you, though!

[Regnad Kcin]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink
What's your point, my little friend? Wait, I bet I know. It raises "questions," right?

[Shrinker]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink


Meanwhile, officials at the site scotched rumours about the possible collapse of the towers. An official told Gulf Times that there was no major damage to the interior areas of the affected buildings.

That's lucky eh? Otherwise they might have collapsed or something...

[pgwenthold]

"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html


I haven't seen anyone follow up on this, but it is important, because it seriously affects mutton-head's calculations.

If I use the numbers listed on this site, which are apparently from the original reference, I get the following average composition

< 2.5 1.1%
2.5-10 .35%
10 - 53 39.4%
> 53 59.1%

With the makeup of the >53 components something like
75 micron 35%
75 - 300 micron 45%
> 300 20%

Now, if I call the average <2.5 particle 1 micron, the 2.5-10 is 6 microns, the 10 - 53 is 30 microns, the 75 - 300 is 185 microns, and using only 300 for greater than 300, I estimate an average particle size of 113 microns.

At the ABSOLUTELY LOWEST LIMIT, where particles 10 - 53 are all estimated to be 10 micron, and 75 - 300 are all estimated to be 75, I get an average of 75 microns. The average particle size from the dust, if I am reading the data right, MUST BE greater than 75. 110 is even toward the low end of a realistic estimate. 120 is perfectly justified.

That means that the LOWER LIMIT to the average particle size is 75, 25% greater than Hoffman's supposed conservative estimate. A more realistic estimate is 120, twice the size.

Now, because these are particle diameters, the amount of material in them goes as the radius cubed. That means in terms of volume, a particle that is 60 microns is half the volume of one that is 75 microns. That means it takes _twice_ as much energy to "pulverize" the concrete into 60 micron pieces than 75 micron pieces. Therefore, if Hoffman used 60 microns as the average particle size, then his energy estimate is twice as large as the upper possible limit, and is EIGHT times higher than a more realistic estimate of the energy that would be needed.

So Mutton-Head, if the energy required is only half of that Hoffman claimed was needed, how does that change his conclusions?

And this analysis ignores the fact that this is only an analysis of the pulverized material, and does not take into account the possibility of non-pulverized material.

[delphi_ote]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844139).

ETA I imagine it was probably this post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844535) that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound. ;)

[Polaris]

"911research" has put out another critique of LC2 called Sifting Through Loose Change (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html). Its index page contains a link to Gravy's critique (and I think it contains information and images directly from the document):



edit: I guess I should make it clear that this critique is from a rival CT perspective, so its character is quite different from that of Gravy's piece.

The gist of 911research.com is "Loose Change is absolutely false and made by crackpots, but all their conclusions are spot on because I still don't want to admit that Bush hasn't done something that evil."

[delphi_ote]

Bwah ha ha... now they're claiming the video they ripped off is fake (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm)!

[Polaris]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink

How many passenger jetliners crashed into that building at top speed and fuel capacity?

[RandFan]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844139).

ETA I imagine it was probably this post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844535) that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound. ;) Sorry Delphi,

Fair use, I'm going to have to quote you.

Delphi (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844535)
They're coming after Dylan because what he's saying doesn't match their first hand experience. He's using video they risked their lives to get to say something they don't agree with. They're not sitting on the video of what happened. It's in their documentary. It's just as easy for anyone to get their hands on it as it was for Dylan to get his hands on it.

Now Dylan is going to get his ass handed to him in court. :)

So sue me.

[Shrinker]

How many passenger jetliners crashed into that building at top speed and fuel capacity?
The fire's on the outsides of the buildings geggs. Helps to do a little investigating since your Looser buddies won't ever tell you this stuff.

http://skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-354990.html

I saw the fires at about 1500 when they seemd to be out of control on the second tower (the one furthest from City Centre Mall) but there was also clearly smoke coming from the first building. The flames were burning up the external faces and seemed to be the saem as last time - the external waterproofing on fire.
The fire appears to be concentrated only or mainly on the outside aluminum cladding where there are no sprinklers. Its just a guess. But maybe the fire started inside, but lets hope the fire did not reach the core, which could melt the steel causing the whole building to collapse.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5724/dsc002721gp.jpg

[Gravy]

Repent, sinners...you must comply...

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=88799&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink
geggy, your lack of sincerity regarding 9/11 is deeply disturbing. I am appealing to you to reconsider what you are doing, and why you are doing it.

You have made 191 posts here. How many have contained accurate, relevant information? I'll bet I could count them on one hand. Why doesn't that bother you? Why do you not question the validity of your sources and methods? Why do you continue to rely on CT websites for information, when you've been shown time and time again that they are unreliable?

You behavior is disrespectful of the many thoughtful people here who make the effort to be sure their arguments conform to logic and evidence. You have been shown to be wrong in almost every post of yours, yet you show no signs of learning from your mistakes. Instead, you seem to revel in your stupidity. You remind me of a school kid who plays the fool because that's the only way he can be accepted socially. That's a bad tactic here.

Your behavior is also disrespectful to the victims of 9/11, to the people who worked in rescue, recovery, clean-up, and investigation, and to the thousands of people who feel the effects of that day all the time. Have those people done something to deserve your disrespect? Is "Nudge nudge WTC wink wink" really the best you can do by them?

I want to believe that you're a better person than that, but so far the evidence says otherwise. I've asked you a number of times to reconsider your behavior, and as long as you keep posting in this way, I'll continue asking, because your lack of sincerity about 9/11 is offensive to me.

So I'll ask again, earnestly: geggy, please reconsider your behavior, which is an embarrassment to you and an affront to others.

-Mark Roberts

[RandFan]

Bwah ha ha... now they're claiming the video they ripped off is fake (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm)!Rich.

[hellaeon]

wow, I just came back this morning to work thinking, what have I missed.

I cant believe the same arguements are persisting but the best news of the morning for me is that lawsuit. I have such a feeling of gratification at this time. Reality now is enforcing itself onto their 'agenda'. This is awesome news and I for one feel this is a great result for common sense.

Man, stoked. Suffer the children.

Just awesome news, very very pleased.

[Pardalis]

Nudge nudge WTC wink wink

I think geggy is mentally retarded. If so, I apologize for any insult I might have said to him in the past.

[Regnad Kcin]

geggy, your lack of sincerity regarding 9/11 is deeply disturbing. I am appealing to you to reconsider what you are doing, and why you are doing it.

You have made 191 posts here. How many have contained accurate, relevant information? I'll bet I could count them on one hand...For some reason our little friend enjoys the heck out of posting links. Oh, and asking questions. But putting together a persuasive, coherent point of his own, never mind engage in back-and-forth debate/discourse, seems far beyond his abilities. What are you gonna do?

---

RandFan! You've certainly missed a lively one so far. (Check out part 1 (simply titled "Loose Change") as well as "Has Anyone Seen a Realistice [sic] Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?") Anyhow, welcome back.

[Regnad Kcin]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844139).

ETA I imagine it was probably this post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844535) that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound. ;)And a couple posts later Mr. Avery "toasts" a poster who says there's "no use arguing with someone like" you, "nor will it be the end of loose change [sic]..."

Then, I lost a tooth when my jaw hit the floor reading this, from a DabeesUK:

"No use arguing with someone like that.."

True Jessica, but it's good to have people who disagree with our views on the truth.

It helps us to learn how to debate and refine the reasons why we believe what we do. I have garnished so much in how to debate in the year i have been investigating 9/11. Much of it from the people who agree with the official line.

They help us learn, and eventually they will also learn the TRUTH, when the powers that be are finally held responsible.

I'm not holding my breath.
I...just...I don't know what to say.

[Gravy]

I just wanted to say a big public Howdy-do to delphi and RandFan! You have been missed around here.

p.s. Does anyone else find it suspicious that they returned at the same time?

[Gravy]

I haven't seen anyone follow up on this, but it is important, because it seriously affects mutton-head's calculations.
Thanks for doing that dustbunking. It IS a very important point. Not to mention that we have no idea how much of the concrete was actually pulverized. The CTs seem to think it's okay to use any old random figure, for example...um...let's see..it's coming to me...100%!

[Regnad Kcin]

Bwah ha ha... now they're claiming the video they ripped off is fake (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm)!Well, I read through about half. And now my head hurts. Much like that writer's spine must from bending backwards for so long.

[delphi_ote]

And a couple posts later Mr. Avery "toasts" a poster who says there's "no use arguing with someone like" you, "nor will it be the end of loose change [sic]..."
Brave words. He'll be crying like a baby in court. And his parents are going to be really mad when they have to pay up.
Then, I lost a tooth when my jaw hit the floor reading this, from a DabeesUK:


I...just...I don't know what to say.
Irony is not their strong point. "Keep around dissenting opinions... until you don't like them!"

[Gravy]

I'm afraid they've got you pegged, delphi.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4847174

[delphi_ote]

I'm afraid they've got you pegged, delphi.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4847174
No. I'm not the master of the obvious, because this footage was obviously all faked. The lawyers are fake, too. It's all part of the cover up.

I can't even see the obvious fact that I'M part of the cover up!

[pgwenthold]

Thanks for doing that dustbunking. It IS a very important point. Not to mention that we have no idea how much of the concrete was actually pulverized. The CTs seem to think it's okay to use any old random figure, for example...um...let's see..it's coming to me...100%!

And even then, they can't get it right.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And even then, they can't get it right.

Indeed, between taking a figure that is too low for the size of the concrete dust, and taking a figure too low for the amount of GPE of the structure they calculations were _way_ off in left field.

[kookbreaker]

Sorry Delphi,

Fair use, I'm going to have to quote you.

:)

So sue me.

First you have to sell the post for $15.

[Pardalis]

Now THAT was fun. I got myself suspended again (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844139).

ETA I imagine it was probably this post (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4844535) that did it. I just couldn't resist rubbing salt in that wound. ;)

You got banned because you dared to respond to God Avery.

[WildCat]

I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species.
:rub: This might be because I've been drinking for the last 9 hours, but I love you delphi_ote! :alc:

[dubfan]

Oh, this is rich. Now they're poking a stick into the hornet's nest of the law firm representing the Naudet brothers.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5108

NOTE: Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein, & Selz website at http://www.fkks.com/ was down for a few hours this morning. Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa! cheers.gif

i sent that smiling freak a piece of my mind.

These guys are going to Darwin themselves right out of existence.

[delphi_ote]

:rub: This might be because I've been drinking for the last 9 hours, but I love you delphi_ote! :alc:
And you're not sharing? Damn you! I need booze!

[Pardalis]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=5108

For once, geggy made some sense:

Holy F*** that is the worst idea in the world. Do you think that bombarding a LAW FIRM with email is going to make them agree with you??? Jesus, people, get Dylan's ok before doing anything that may negatively effect him. His butt is on the line, not yours. Have some respect.

[delphi_ote]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=5108

For once, geggy made some sense:
Wow. We must be rubbing off on him a little bit.

[hellaeon]

Oh, this is rich. Now they're poking a stick into the hornet's nest of the law firm representing the Naudet brothers.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5108

These guys are going to Darwin themselves right out of existence.

:jaw-dropp

wow...they just dont get it.

Reality exists only on TV for these freaks.

[Gravy]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=5108

For once, geggy made some sense:
Can't be geggy. There are no links.

[Pardalis]

Can't be geggy. There are no links.

Shhhht. Just wanted to tease geggy...

[Stellafane]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=5108

For once, geggy made some sense:

You know that old saying, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king?" Well, in the land of the moronically stupid, the half-witted is king.

[RandFan]

I just wanted to say a big public Howdy-do to delphi and RandFan! You have been missed around here.

p.s. Does anyone else find it suspicious that they returned at the same time?We've been seen together at TAM so that's not going to fly. ;)

Sadly it is only temporary for me. I'm still a few weeks away from getting back. I've been working 7 days a week for over a month and I desperatly needed a break so I thought I would stick my head in here for a few days during the holiday.

[RandFan]

Gravy,

I downloaded all of the files in your sig. What can I say but, WOW! Good job sir.

[kookbreaker]

Oh, this is rich. Now they're poking a stick into the hornet's nest of the law firm representing the Naudet brothers.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5108





These guys are going to Darwin themselves right out of existence.

So anyone want to place bets as to when the racketeering charge is filed?

And when it is, how many people on that forum explain how they'll get off from some moronic misunderstanding as to how the law operates?

[60hzxtl]

I swear, I could KISS you right now! So pucker up!:kiss1:
Standing by to stand by, for the above, but my sleeves are rolled up to get back at this.

Blushes wildly - even though nothing uses 60hz xtl any more. . .

[Gravy]

We've been seen together at TAM...
That's what I referring to.
:blush:

[Gravy]

So anyone want to place bets as to when the racketeering charge is filed?

And when it is, how many people on that forum explain how they'll get off from some moronic misunderstanding as to how the law operates?
The amazing thing is, the Loosers apparently can't fathom that people can read their idiotic prose and veiled threats on a public web forum.

[delphi_ote]

That's what I referring to.
:blush:
No no no. It's Huntster that has the hots for me.

[RandFan]

That's what I referring to.
:blush:Oh Damn. :o

I'm secure in my sexuality so I can say that Delphi is a good looking guy. I'm honest enough to say I'm not. Fortunately I'm lucky enough to be married to a great woman. :)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i sent that smiling freak a piece of my mind.

I hope he made it a good one. it was probably his last piece. :p

[Orphia Nay]

Delphi, I saw your posts while I was composing mine (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=240&#entry4854281), and your spirit egged me on. Let's see how long it takes them to ban me.

[sophia8]

Reading this thread is turning out to be my morning's entertainment.
First the Loosers make and distibute a video containing huge chunks of ripped-off copyrighted material.
Than they allow their forum to be filled with posts that contravene all kinds of TOSs.
Then they start pissing off a whole firm of lawyers....
Can't wait for the next episode!

[60hzxtl]

Way back on May 4th I made this observation about using their very film to hang the LC'ers - italics mine-

---Guys, all you have to do is take Loose Change and narrate over it. It is mostly news footage, and paid for as stock footage.

Pay the same sources, and put your own narration over his tripe "the sign of hiiiiighhhh expooooosives!

When he hits the "misssssilllleee in the pentagon" bilge water, just keep repeating, But nobody saw a missile.

Is so simple, it costs no more than time and stock footage. It should put a crimp in 'ol Dylan's career.---

I assumed that 'like -hey, man Dylan' had done the least of that - paid for the stock footage.

My mistake! He acts as he never knew that you have to pay for the other guy's work!

This could be the start of a huge pile on - did he pay for ANY of the footage he used? CNN? NBC? FOX?

How about the music? Did he help himself there?

What do you have when your movie has no footage? No pictures?

A Radio show.

[Belz...]

I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species.

So I told Mephisto. Small hope, but hope nonetheless.

[sleahead]

Excellent post over on LC, Orphia, and you haven't been banned - yet. A stunning follow up by someone called Blinker has earned them an instant ban.

I do hope this lawsuit at least goes to the point where Avery has to declare how much he has earned from his shameful video and where the money has gone.

[Belz...]

No no no. It's Huntster that has the hots for me.

Ugh.

[60hzxtl]

Watching them scramble over at the Loser's forum is a hoot. Telling themselves that all we need is a circle hug and we'll- get -that -footage- we need- from -those -nasty -french- guys -who -are -they -to -stop- us- when- our- hearts- are- pure-


That made me realize that the movement over there is based on FEELINGS. We Feeel that wtc7 was ct. We Feeeeel that it was a missile nobody saw at the Pentagon. We Feeeeel that we can use other people's work for free.

Science plays no part. It's just feelings.

[Hutch]

I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species.

Indeed so, and they have rallied round when needed. For example, when they started putting up Danish newspaper articles, there was Claus Larsen to nail that down. And when a couple of them started on the moon hoax, I asked for and recieved help from the BAUT by a poster named obviousman who has buried all but the most oblivious under a mountain of facts and references.

And they think we are somehow part of a vast conspiracy? Yet probably no more than 6-8 of us have been over there at any time, a small fraction of this Boards' numbers. Many posters at the JREF may not even be aware of what is going on--because they are handling other topics in their expertise, not just this one.

Heck, the LC'ers should be happy we haven't released De_Bunk on them...:eek: :eek:

[Shrinker]

A stunning follow up by someone called Blinker has earned them an instant ban.

<cough><cough> ;)

Welcome to the forum sleahead. Very nice opening post if I may say so.

Yes, I earned mine today:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/3617447af14678684.jpg
I'll be wearing it with pride for the next two weeks.

(Thanks to Darat)

[Darat]

Hmm bug I'll look into it. (ETA) Sorta fixed - if you re-upload it the system won't resize it.

[Z]

Shrinker - you need to sell those (or award them :D).

Does JREF have an on-line store?

[Shrinker]

Shrinker - you need to sell those (or award them :D).

Does JREF have an on-line store?

$17.95 each, or free to the familes of banned users.

[Shrinker]

I like this, following up from my post...

Don't you like the fact that 2 or 3 people in this thread used their first and only post so far, to basically side with the Naudet's or tell you how to fix your "horrible mistakes".

It's my only post because you banned me you t!t.

[dubfan]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/3617447af14678684.jpg


http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/thumbsup.gif

[Regnad Kcin]

It's little more than a culty love-fest over there. It also resembles a kid-built plywood clubhouse with a sign reading "No Girls Alowd." Discussion and debate are not on their minds, never mind they seem ill-equipped to engage in such.

It occured to me it might be fun to register and post as a new believer, establishing an initial sense that I'm "one of them." Then, gradually raise small points or geggy-like questions, ever so slightly chipping away at the inanity, all while protecting my cover. Yes, operate as an infiltrator. Why don't I do it? Patience is not my long suit and I'm afraid I would quickly go insane from overexposure to it all.

[HerNibs]

I am struggling through the Loose Change forum.

I have several little questions an one big question. I cannot find the answer.

The big question is what do they hope to gain by all of this?

Are they petioning to punish the responsible party? Are they out to help the families of victims?

It would be easier for me to read all of this if there is one person with an agenda that is more than "darn sneeky government has pulled another one".

Yeah, we know the gov can be deceitful and sneaky, didn't need this to tell me that.



Is there a link to a thread or even a post that give the reason why?

Oh, I don't accept "we need to stop them before they do it again...".

I would like to see something more like "we need to stop them before they do it again, so we are X (making this public, gathering funds to help the victims, hiring lawyers to punish, petitioning congress, etc.)

I understand that the reason may be subjective and not as important to me and I am willing to take that into consideration.

I would love to see some one say "with X information and X proof, we will do Y to guarantee that Z happens". Everything I am reading now just seems to be a b!tch session, blame game or calling some one else a poopy head.

Any help would be appreciated. Don't know how long I will have to read to find it myself.

Thanks

HN

[delphi_ote]

I like this, following up from my post...



It's my only post because you banned me you t!t.
It was my 70th post. I'm only suspended until the 7th or so.

I think my quick posts about how banning me would make them what they hate kept them from outright booting me off the board.

[joseph k.]

...

I would love to see some one say "with X information and X proof, we will do Y to guarantee that Z happens". Everything I am reading now just seems to be a b!tch session, blame game or calling some one else a poopy head.

Any help would be appreciated. Don't know how long I will have to read to find it myself.

Thanks

HN


I know exactly what you mean. I have been poking the bear over there, so to speak (apologies to Colbert), and the only cogent "XYZ" argument I have seen hasn't been from an poster, but a poster's link (of course)...This argument is not exactly how it seems to be interpreted by its poster, but seems to prove blazingly incompetent inaction on several levels stretching throughout key government and intelligence areas with a very real possibility of intentionality. There is some testimony from U.S. attorney David Philip Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton, cited saying that Ashcroft was given direct evidence of many aspects of the coming attack, and that several FBI agents were willfully ignored. There is quite a bit of evidence presented here and it will take quite some time to go through it all.

here is the link she gave to me:
www[dot]mediamonitors[dot]net/mosaddeq36[dot]html#_Toc9410686

What I have been noticing at the LC forum and a few various message boards is that the brighter CT folks are dropping the physical evidence arguments and focusing more on the LIHOP type claims. More and more people are citing more serious investigators like Michael Ruppert and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (the second of which I am just learning of). I have read some of Ruppert's work ( www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/ ) and am partly through the Ahmed excerpt from his "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", that is at the end of the above link. Another quite lengthy case is made in Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" and people seem comfortable saying go read that as their sourcing, but I find none of them have lined up enough waterfowl to explain it in their own terms. It is strange, as well, that Mr. Ruppert seems to be distancing himself from 911 conspiracy (I could be mistaken but he isn't as involved from what I have seen as he was in the onset of the "truth" movement) and focusing more on his better recognized milieu of peak oil. Nevertheless, he is a professional investigator (ex-lapd..see his record here: (www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/about.shtml) and the case he has made in "Crossing the Rubicon" is interesting, to say the least.

As I have not processed all the information and haven't much to add on the subject as of yet, I suppose this post is just a heads up that the argument seems to be changing more in this manner.

[joseph k.]

here is the link she gave to me:
www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410686

some of Ruppert's work ( www.fromthewilderness.com/ )

(ex-lapd..see his record here: (www.fromthewilderness.com/about.shtml)


YES! 15 posts! ahem...
Here's the completed links.

[dubfan]

I am struggling through the Loose Change forum.

I have several little questions an one big question. I cannot find the answer.

The big question is what do they hope to gain by all of this?

Are they petioning to punish the responsible party? Are they out to help the families of victims?

It would be easier for me to read all of this if there is one person with an agenda that is more than "darn sneeky government has pulled another one".

Yeah, we know the gov can be deceitful and sneaky, didn't need this to tell me that.



Is there a link to a thread or even a post that give the reason why?

Oh, I don't accept "we need to stop them before they do it again...".

I would like to see something more like "we need to stop them before they do it again, so we are X (making this public, gathering funds to help the victims, hiring lawyers to punish, petitioning congress, etc.)

I understand that the reason may be subjective and not as important to me and I am willing to take that into consideration.

I would love to see some one say "with X information and X proof, we will do Y to guarantee that Z happens". Everything I am reading now just seems to be a b!tch session, blame game or calling some one else a poopy head.

Any help would be appreciated. Don't know how long I will have to read to find it myself.

Thanks

HN

It's not really a coherent movement, and they're not all unified behind one agenda. The closest thing to a shared objective is that they all claim to want a new "independent" investigation into the events of 9/11, presumably one free of the corrupting influence of government. Why anyone should think they would believe that investigaton --given their refusal to confront the facts in front of them already -- is left as exercise for the reader.

For others in the "truth" movement -- 9/11 is really just the tip of the iceberg. For them 9/11 is just the appetizer on a whole CT buffet which includes holocaust denial, New World Order/globalism/Illuminati, the moon hoax, JFK not killed by Oswald, etc. etc. And those are the ones who aren't really weird. We'll save the lizard people for another time.

[Brainster]

I am struggling through the Loose Change forum.

I have several little questions an one big question. I cannot find the answer.

The big question is what do they hope to gain by all of this?

HN

Dylan said in a recent interview:

"I would like to see George Bush walk out of office and into a jail cell. Or at least into a courtroom. I don't think he deserves a jail cell."

Of course, any sensible person would wonder, if Dylan really believed that President Bush killed 3,000 Americans to provide a pretext for war, why in the world would he not think he deserves a jail cell? And, no, he doesn't go on to say that Bush should receive a death sentence; he just wanders off onto the "I don't know what I think" garbage. Dylan's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

IIRC in the Q&A session after the Oakland screening (which can be watched online), Jason Bermas claimed that they felt they had enough evidence to indict Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This indicates to me that perhaps their theory is that Bush was duped like the rest of us sheeple.

[delphi_ote]

I know exactly what you mean. I have been poking the bear over there, so to speak (apologies to Colbert), and the only cogent "XYZ" argument I have seen hasn't been from an poster, but a poster's link (of course)...This argument is not exactly how it seems to be interpreted by its poster, but seems to prove blazingly incompetent inaction on several levels stretching throughout key government and intelligence areas with a very real possibility of intentionality. There is some testimony from U.S. attorney David Philip Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton, cited saying that Ashcroft was given direct evidence of many aspects of the coming attack, and that several FBI agents were willfully ignored. There is quite a bit of evidence presented here and it will take quite some time to go through it all.

here is the link she gave to me:
www[dot]mediamonitors[dot]net/mosaddeq36[dot]html#_Toc9410686

What I have been noticing at the LC forum and a few various message boards is that the brighter CT folks are dropping the physical evidence arguments and focusing more on the LIHOP type claims. More and more people are citing more serious investigators like Michael Ruppert and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (the second of which I am just learning of). I have read some of Ruppert's work ( www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/ ) and am partly through the Ahmed excerpt from his "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", that is at the end of the above link. Another quite lengthy case is made in Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" and people seem comfortable saying go read that as their sourcing, but I find none of them have lined up enough waterfowl to explain it in their own terms. It is strange, as well, that Mr. Ruppert seems to be distancing himself from 911 conspiracy (I could be mistaken but he isn't as involved from what I have seen as he was in the onset of the "truth" movement) and focusing more on his better recognized milieu of peak oil. Nevertheless, he is a professional investigator (ex-lapd..see his record here: (www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/about.shtml) and the case he has made in "Crossing the Rubicon" is interesting, to say the least.

As I have not processed all the information and haven't much to add on the subject as of yet, I suppose this post is just a heads up that the argument seems to be changing more in this manner.
They don't have anything close to a coherent theory, because that would force them to defend specific claims in the face of contradictory evidence. Instead, they couch themselves in a protective cloud of vague paranoia. This lets them dance to new (and even contradictory) claims and evidence whenever necessary.

It's been interesting actually to watch them rationalizing when evidence contradicts them. They'll abandon almost any of the other sections of the movement. In fact, though they make all of the exact same claims that are in Loose Change, many believe Loose Change is part of the coverup!

[60hzxtl]

Dylan said in a recent interview:

"I would like to see George Bush walk out of office and into a jail cell. Or at least into a courtroom. I don't think he deserves a jail cell."

Of course, any sensible person would wonder, if Dylan really believed that President Bush killed 3,000 Americans to provide a pretext for war, why in the world would he not think he deserves a jail cell? And, no, he doesn't go on to say that Bush should receive a death sentence; he just wanders off onto the "I don't know what I think" garbage. Dylan's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

IIRC in the Q&A session after the Oakland screening (which can be watched online), Jason Bermas claimed that they felt they had enough evidence to indict Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This indicates to me that perhaps their theory is that Bush was duped like the rest of us sheeple.


'Like, hey, man Dylan' is drunk on power, and once again we see he does not think things through - uh, Dylan, if Bush walks out of office into a jail cell, who then is president?

[CptColumbo]

It's little more than a culty love-fest over there. It also resembles a kid-built plywood clubhouse with a sign reading "No Girls Alowd." Discussion and debate are not on their minds, never mind they seem ill-equipped to engage in such.

It occured to me it might be fun to register and post as a new believer, establishing an initial sense that I'm "one of them." Then, gradually raise small points or geggy-like questions, ever so slightly chipping away at the inanity, all while protecting my cover. Yes, operate as an infiltrator. Why don't I do it? Patience is not my long suit and I'm afraid I would quickly go insane from overexposure to it all.
Actually I've been doing this for a few weeks now, but it's part of my attempt to get some myth that I created into LC3. I'm trying for a psychic angle among others.

[Shrinker]

Actually I've been doing this for a few weeks now, but it's part of my attempt to get some myth that I created into LC3. I'm trying for a psychic angle among others.

Wouldn't it be fun if everyone over there was just doing the same thing?

[60hzxtl]

This from the Losers:

I really don't think it's the time to be arguing guys. Regardless, Dylan already said he's wrong. He was unaware that this would happen. But the footage was used in many documentaries and presentations along with screenings by people who did not legally gain permission of use by the copyrighted material

Unaware that this would happen? Yet he's an expert on missiles? Controlled demolition? Explosives? Dead hijackers that turn up alive?

Master your own craft, first. You call yourself a film maker?

Bah!

Grampa's got some costumes in the barn, Lets put on a show kids!

'Like, hey, man Dylan' set out to make a fictional film. He never changed course. Now he's starring in it. Don't forget to get a release for yourself.

I can cut and paste the boilerplate for ya buddy - I've used it at NOVA, National Geographic, Discovery, Turner, and History Channel.

[Brainster]

here is the link she gave to me:
www[dot]mediamonitors[dot]net/mosaddeq36[dot]html#_Toc9410686

What I have been noticing at the LC forum and a few various message boards is that the brighter CT folks are dropping the physical evidence arguments and focusing more on the LIHOP type claims. More and more people are citing more serious investigators like Michael Ruppert and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (the second of which I am just learning of). I have read some of Ruppert's work ( www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/ ) and am partly through the Ahmed excerpt from his "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", that is at the end of the above link. Another quite lengthy case is made in Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" and people seem comfortable saying go read that as their sourcing, but I find none of them have lined up enough waterfowl to explain it in their own terms. It is strange, as well, that Mr. Ruppert seems to be distancing himself from 911 conspiracy (I could be mistaken but he isn't as involved from what I have seen as he was in the onset of the "truth" movement) and focusing more on his better recognized milieu of peak oil. Nevertheless, he is a professional investigator (ex-lapd..see his record here: (www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/about.shtml) and the case he has made in "Crossing the Rubicon" is interesting, to say the least.

As I have not processed all the information and haven't much to add on the subject as of yet, I suppose this post is just a heads up that the argument seems to be changing more in this manner.

I doubt that. LIHOP has been around at least as long as MIHOP, but it's not spectacular enough. There's an old saying in financial circles that bad money drives out good money, and I suspect it's true about conspiracy theories as well. (Not that there are many good ones anyway).

Just looking through the Mosaddeq footnotes quickly I note the usual hallmarks of CTers:

1. Mainstream sources are generally only quoted from the immediate aftermath of the event. This is because there are lots of wild stories floating around in the first few days in the rush to get a scoop. Anybody remember the DC police helicopter that was supposedly hijacked on 9-11? It gets some prominent play in 9-11 Eyewitness. How about the plane that supposedly crashed in Dayton?

2. More recent footnotes refer to fellow CTers, who must be regarded as dubious sources. Hopsicker, Flocco and Ruppert are cited. Among the "news" outlets cited are Ananova, Counterpunch and the World Socialist Web Site.

3. The inclusion of the insider trading claims. For some reason the CT crowd can't resist this. I suspect it's because they know that everybody remembers the initial stories and may not have read the followups months and years later that revealed there was nothing to the claims.

4. The claims that something was up on the web once, but now it's gone (from a group obviously now implicated in the coverup). In this case, it's a list of suspicious trades that the SEC had asked Canadian securities firms to investigate. This is also the factoid that is sourced to the World Socialist Web Site.

[delphi_ote]

Regardless, Dylan already said he's wrong.
Actually, Dylan said the exact opposite of that.
we are not going away. thanks to the success of the 2nd edition, we've had a number of people come to us with both footage and evidence. Loose Change Final Cut will be 100% legal and trust me, it's going to blow the 9/11 movement out of the water.

[delphi_ote]

This is because there are lots of wild stories floating around in the first few days in the rush to get a scoop. Anybody remember the DC police helicopter that was supposedly hijacked on 9-11? It gets some prominent play in 9-11 Eyewitness. How about the plane that supposedly crashed in Dayton?
Or the bomb at the State Department building? Or the planes that were still in the air in the afternoon? I vaguely recall something supposedly happening in Florida, too. And the anthrax scare... holy God.

I'm still extremely angry that no major media outlet made a serious effort to apologize for these reports. The hysteria that went across the crawlers alone during those first couple days was outright traumatic. Anything that wasn't confirmed was just generally forgotten about, not really corrected.

Television news (especially the 24 hour networks) jumped the shark that day.

[Regnad Kcin]

we are not going away. thanks to the success of the 2nd edition, we've had a number of people come to us with both footage and evidence. Loose Change Final Cut will be 100% legal and trust me, it's going to blow the 9/11 movement out of the water.Does he not understand that when you figuratively "blow [something] out of the water" it means you've destroyed its credibility, not reenforced it?

[delphi_ote]

Does he not understand that when you figuratively "blow [something] out of the water" it means you've destroyed its credibility, not reenforced it?
I was wondering the same thing. I thought maybe he meant the official 9/11 story? Whatever he meant, the result is a travesty against the English language.

[60hzxtl]

And the anthrax scare... holy God.




Hey, I was case #1160 at NBC. Filled out a pile of papers, (On the clock) talked to a bunch of dept of health counselors and was given a fistful of Cipro with the promise of 90 days more from NBC

I kept trying to explain to them that I had been on the floor that had the anthrax spores for less than 20 minutes, four hours before the window of infection was drawn. In other words had I been there 5 hours later, (in a 10 day window) I wouldn't have counted. No matter, they said, take the Cipro. But I said, I have no symptoms, and this is not contagious. No - take the Cipro. I called my Dr. He said, think about it, and call me tomorrow with your decision. (His hat flew off when he saw how long they wanted me to take this.) I looked at the side effects, and decided not to take it.

2 weeks go by and my nose swab comes back negative (I tried to tell ya') with orders to STOP TAKING THE CIPRO IMMEDIATELY. OK. . .

[joseph k.]

I doubt that.

Thanks, I appreciate any insight into these two (Ruppert, Ahmed), being a bit behind some of the million pages of stuff dropped on me as "proof", I am a little overwhelmed with these arguments. Perhaps, my feeling that this method is becoming more prevalent is due to my personal experience with it, of late. It is quite frustrating when folks made up their mind and nothing will convince them aside from me going through a mountain of information and showing its faults. Sadly, it seems that they can't understand that they haven't really looked through this info themselves, especially in an investigative and critical manner.

[Mr. Skinny]

1. Mainstream sources are generally only quoted from the immediate aftermath of the event. This is because there are lots of wild stories floating around in the first few days in the rush to get a scoop. Anybody remember the DC police helicopter that was supposedly hijacked on 9-11? It gets some prominent play in 9-11 Eyewitness. How about the plane that supposedly crashed in Dayton?
[slight derail]I have never heard of a supposed plane crash in Dayton. We did however have a jet jockey break the sound barrier in his F-16 on 9-11, and rumors began spreading that the VA hospital had been bombed. [/derail]

[Pardalis]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=180
I like this bit from Avery:

i sold the first loose change for 15 bucks, including shipping. i only charged more for the 2nd edition because we spent almost $5,000 making it, including a hard drive which crashed a week before the movie was supposed to be done
3) we donate back to the movement constantly. i dont like publicizing it because i dont do it to prove anything, i do it to give back and to share my success. i just gave 911blogger and revereradionetwork $300 each, i gave Russ Pickering of PentagonResearch $500

What an [rule8]! Not only is he trying to make us believe these are "honorable charities" he gave the money to, but he's also giving crucial information to the lawyers! How lame can a person get?

At least he could have donated this money to the families of the 9/11 victims!

[delphi_ote]

[slight derail]I have never heard of a supposed plane crash in Dayton. We did however have a jet jockey break the sound barrier in his F-16 on 9-11, and rumors began spreading that the VA hospital had been bombed. [/derail]
That was the same story I heard as well from a buddy in Dayton that day.

[Pardalis]

Oh, a poster named Blinker beat me to it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=270

ETA: What a great post!

[delphi_ote]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=180
I like this bit from Avery:



What an [rule8]! Not only is he trying to make us believe these are "honorable charities" he gave the money to, but he's also giving crucial information to the lawyers! How lame can a person get?

At least he could have donated this money to the families of the 9/11 victims!
I question how they spent 5k making this movie.

[delphi_ote]

Oh, a poster named Blinker beat me to it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=270
Blinker = Suspended lol
What a devastating response.

This court case is going to be so much fun. Maybe better than the Dover trials. :D

ETA Now THIS is classic.
You just blew yourself out of the ground with the last statement. If "truth" and lies are determined in court as you point out, how do you know what DA said is lies? Didn't you just cancelled yourself out there no? Talk about an agenda! You practically made your entire post irrelevant.

[Pardalis]

What a devastating response.

This court case is going to be so much fun. Maybe better than the Dover trials. :D

ETA Now THIS is classic.

So is this (in a good way this time):

In the eyes of the law this movement is potentially a conspiracy to defame on a massive scale. Ironically, if you'd called it a 'Unfounded Speculation Movement' you might have been in the clear.

'Unfounded Speculation Movement', lol, that's brilliant!
:D

edited to clarify

[60hzxtl]

I question how they spent 5k making this movie.
Pizza

Sprite

Red Bull

Adds up pretty fast.

[delphi_ote]

Pizza

Sprite

Red Bull

Adds up pretty fast.
I guess. But making digital copies of other people's footage is easy. Odds are their editing software is pirated, but even if they bought it they'd only be dropping about $800 on it. Say $700 to get their hands on all the footage (and that's a pretty big damn estimate!) A decent microphone at $200 (again, gross overestimate.) Sound card at $200. Hard drive, $300 tops.

I can't even come up with half the expenses they're crying about.

[Ramooone]

I question how they spent 5k making this movie.

yeah same here, how do you spend 5k on a movie when you didnt purchase any rights to the footage....

[chipmunk stew]

I just wanted to say a big public Howdy-do to delphi and RandFan! You have been missed around here.

p.s. Does anyone else find it suspicious that they returned at the same time?Just as the Naudet letter became public...how convenient....


I missed you guys. Welcome back.

[Pardalis]

Delphi, I saw your posts while I was composing mine (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=240&#entry4854281), and your spirit egged me on. Let's see how long it takes them to ban me.

Nice posts btw (the ones at LC).

[60hzxtl]

I guess.
I can't even come up with half the expenses they're crying about.

Wait till they see what other people's footage costs when they have to pay for it. It is sold by the second.

I once paid twice for an image of Woody Guthrie - once to the owner of the photograph, (Getty images, by way of Life Magazine) and paid a fee to the estate of Guthrie. I was happy to do it, and the irony was that I paid money to the estate of a man who didn't belive in private property.

With any luck the other owners of unpaid for footage will pile on, asking for their share, CNN, NBC, etc.

Its cheaper to ask first, then pay, than to be caught, and then pay. And saying, but I was giving it away rather than selling it doesn't work - that's MY stuff you were giving away, says th owner.

But 'like, hey, man Dylan' is an expert!

[Pardalis]

This is from London Eye:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=300

Why would the 9/11 C...Omission Report fail to include the unprecedented 36hour power down at the upper floors of WTC Tower 2 on the weekend before 9/11 (8/9 September 2001), when many "engineers" were witnessed in the building with spools of cable and boxes !!!

Yeah, 36 hours to rig a 100+ stories high building with explosives. Not to mention that two other buidings had to be rigged as well with no power down... right.

[The_Fire]

This from the Losers:

I really don't think it's the time to be arguing guys. Regardless, Dylan already said he's wrong. He was unaware that this would happen. But the footage was used in many documentaries and presentations along with screenings by people who did not legally gain permission of use by the copyrighted material

Unaware that this would happen? Yet he's an expert on missiles? Controlled demolition? Explosives? Dead hijackers that turn up alive?

Master your own craft, first. You call yourself a film maker?

Bah!

Grampa's got some costumes in the barn, Lets put on a show kids!

'Like, hey, man Dylan' set out to make a fictional film. He never changed course. Now he's starring in it. Don't forget to get a release for yourself.

I can cut and paste the boilerplate for ya buddy - I've used it at NOVA, National Geographic, Discovery, Turner, and History Channel.
I cant help but being reminded of a former collegue of mine, whom shipped of one of these nice little informercials, his first, (We had a contract with Århus County) to be aired WITHOUT waiting for the "all clear" on the music.:eek:
He hadn't even contacted Nordic Copyright Bureau to make sure he had the right to mechanical copy it (A must here in Denmark). :dig:
Turned out that the music were NOT cleared for that kind of use AND the swedish record compagny found out.
He, and the boss, ended up having to do an emergency pull AFTER the first airing AND sucking up (I'm telling you: MAJOR rectum kissing) to a swedish recordcompagny in the hopes of NOT having to pay approximately 3800 USD in fines:faint:.....
They succeded but THAT never happened again. AND I EVEN WARNED HIM! (NOT avery! I wouldn't help that creep if my life depended on it).

ETA: The informercial were approximately 40 seconds. And that was JUST music. I shudder to think about what the penalty would have been if it were as much AV-stuff as these loosers have highjacked.

[chipmunk stew]

<cough><cough> ;)

Welcome to the forum sleahead. Very nice opening post if I may say so.

Yes, I earned mine today:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/3617447af14678684.jpg
I'll be wearing it with pride for the next two weeks.

(Thanks to Darat)I love the badge. Your post was awesome:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4855416

[Manny]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=180
I like this bit from Avery:



What an [rule8]! Not only is he trying to make us believe these are "honorable charities" he gave the money to, but he's also giving crucial information to the lawyers! How lame can a person get?

At least he could have donated this money to the families of the 9/11 victims!Saw that and guffawed. I can't post on the forum right now on account of I'm between computers and have no idea what my password is or the throwaway email address is I used to register.

But someone should tell Dylan that the word for money given to someone who flogs your product 24/7 is not "charity," it's "marketing."

[brodski]

I guess. But making digital copies of other people's footage is easy. Odds are their editing software is pirated, but even if they bought it they'd only be dropping about $800 on it. Say $700 to get their hands on all the footage (and that's a pretty big damn estimate!) A decent microphone at $200 (again, gross overestimate.) Sound card at $200. Hard drive, $300 tops.

I can't even come up with half the expenses they're crying about. I bet they're including their distribution costs as well, and possibly "publicity" expenses as well, there are many, many ways to pad out expenses, especially if you're working with someone else's money, or just want to brag about how "professional" your film is. Claiming that it took "just" $5000 to make is a way of making two different statements, depending on the audience.
1) look what a big-shot 22 year old "guerrilla" filmmaker i am, I've got a 5 grand film under my belt,
whilst implying
2) Look what amazing results I can get with a tiny budget,

Remember that Dylan's primary reason for making the film in the first place was basically as a show reel piece to get into film school. I wouldn't be surprised if he put on his CV how much he had sunk (or persuaded others to sink) into his film.

I wonder if he'll mention this lawsuit on his applications to film school?
:D

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the LTW crew just pulled the figure out of the same orifice that they get most of their information.

[Kent1]

YES! 15 posts! ahem...
Here's the completed links.


Ruppert was big a few years back, but most of his work was wiped out by blogger Bill Herbert.

This site was one of the first large 9/11 debunking sites.
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/

[kookbreaker]

This is from London Eye:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=300

Yeah, 36 hours to rig a 100+ stories high building with explosives. Not to mention that two other buidings had to be rigged as well with no power down... right.

Not to mention that the so-called power down only has one source saying it happened (one Scott Forbes), the figures given don't add up to the work Forbes claims was being done, and many others in the CT crowd think its BS.

The problem a lot of folks have with the 911 comission is that they think it was written for their benefit. It wasn't. It was not trying to be the Warren Comission, it was trying to document the events leading up to that horrible day.

[Pardalis]

I just came across your post (seems I'm going backwards today):

Dylan said in a recent interview:

"I would like to see George Bush walk out of office and into a jail cell. Or at least into a courtroom. I don't think he deserves a jail cell."

Of course, any sensible person would wonder, if Dylan really believed that President Bush killed 3,000 Americans to provide a pretext for war, why in the world would he not think he deserves a jail cell? And, no, he doesn't go on to say that Bush should receive a death sentence; he just wanders off onto the "I don't know what I think" garbage. Dylan's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

If Avery says Bush doesn't deserves a jail cell, so why would he walk out the office in the first place? Let me get this straight: according to Avery, Bush deserves to be put to justice (courtroom), but not jail (so he's innocent).

??????????

This guy (Avery) really makes no sense!

[kookbreaker]

I question how they spent 5k making this movie.

Dylan probably counted the hours he put into it, rated himself an hourly wage, and put that as the figure. You might figure some website costs into it, but I think google covered most of that.

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, a poster named Blinker beat me to it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=270

ETA: What a great post!I believe Blinker is also Shrinker, as seen in this forum.

[Pardalis]

I believe Blinker is also Shrinker, as seen in this forum.

Great work Shrinker!

ETA: I bet he has the same avatar on both forums. For some reason I can't see avatars on the LC forum. What a shame...

ETA: If only it were also true for those annoying emoticons.

[Shrinker]

Great work Shrinker!
Thanks guys, I enjoyed typing that one, and reading the hopeless attempts to dismiss it.

ETA: I didn't think LC allowed avatars since I don't see them anywhere. I probably would have givne them a 'special' avatar though. Those guys are worth a bit of photoshop time.

[Pardalis]

I probably would have givne them a 'special' avatar though. Those guys are worth a bit of photoshop time.

But yours is so hillarious!

[Shrinker]

But yours is so hillarious!
I know, but every time someone says it I get a little more guilty about having found it on a random website...

[Pardalis]

Now they are demanding a "full and comprehensive inquiry". Seems they didn't get the first one...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=330

[Regnad Kcin]

Quotes from the the LC thread, in blue:

I believe...

1. The ironic posts of Dylan doing something 'illegal'
2. People crying '2 wrong dont make a right'

Should be banned on sight. I cant take this kumbaya **** while we slowly move into a NWO type plan.
so...censoring is your answer to this n.w.o.? seems like fascism is trying to stop fascism...

NEAT.wasting time on people like notingsoc should stop now and they should just be banned. The "OMG YOUR CENSORING US WAAHHHHHH!" card is old. They are trying to set an example to the truth movement with this. IMO we shouldn't be wasting our time on people like him and should be focusing on the issues at hand. The time for skeptics being here to keep us on our toes is over.Yes, im all for cencoring people who take our tedious flaws in our truth movement and redirect them back at us like it is a huge deal.Do they have secret handshakes to get in their clubhouse? And passwords? Passwords are cool.

[joseph k.]

Ruppert was big a few years back, but most of his work was wiped out by blogger Bill Herbert.

This site was one of the first large 9/11 debunking sites.
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/


Thanks!

[sophia8]

I see that the LC batbrains are now saying that the Naudet brothers were "in" on the conspiracy. Funny how that never occurred to them until the Naudets sicced the lawyers onto Avery.
And from what I can remember, the brother who filmed the first plane hitting only got the shot by sheer fluke - he was out with a fireman checking a gas leak and they just happened to be in the right spot at the right moment. Which means that the fireman had to be in on the conspiracy as well.
And, just imagine for a few moments that there was a neevil gubmint conspiracy to blow up the WTC, and that the Naudets were part of it. Just think of the conversation they might have had when things started to go:
"Hey bro, this conspiracy is really going! Those neevil gubmint bastards are murdering thousands of people in cold blood! And they're going to cover it all up afterwards, by any means possible!"
"Sacre blue, bro, you are so right! So lets run straight into this massif burning building that's wired with explosives and primed to collapse! Go-go-go!"

[sophia8]

Dammed double post....

[kookbreaker]

Quotes from the the LC thread, in blue:

Do they have secret handshakes to get in their clubhouse? And passwords? Passwords are cool.

To paraphrase William Poundstone: There is a pervasive something not quite adult in the CT forum.

[Pardalis]

I see that the LC batbrains are now saying that the Naudet brothers were "in" on the conspiracy. Funny how that never occurred to them until the Naudets sicced the lawyers onto Avery.
And from what I can remember, the brother who filmed the first plane hitting only got the shot by sheer fluke - he was out with a fireman checking a gas leak and they just happened to be in the right spot at the right moment. Which means that the fireman had to be in on the conspiracy as well.

Or maybe the gas leak was preplanned...

The whole city was rigged! :boxedin:

[Regnad Kcin]

I see that the LC batbrains are now saying that the Naudet brothers were "in" on the conspiracy. Funny how that never occurred to them until the Naudets sicced the lawyers onto Avery.
And from what I can remember, the brother who filmed the first plane hitting only got the shot by sheer fluke - he was out with a fireman checking a gas leak and they just happened to be in the right spot at the right moment. Which means that the fireman had to be in on the conspiracy as well...
They're way ahead of you, friend: (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm)

I want to emphasise that this essay does not claim to be able to prove who was responsible for 9/11. 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: who those people might be is a different subject. I have my own ideas on that, but they have little or nothing to do with the Naudet film, other than observing that it seems rather unlikely that two French infidels would be working for a Muslim fundamentalist group -or that that group could penetrate and subvert the Fire Department of New York, which at some level seems to have been involved in the planning of 9/11 — and the Naudet film.
(Thanks to dephi ote for the link.)

(Ahh! I'm using links now like geggy! Ahhhh!)

[Pardalis]

(Ahh! I'm using links now like geggy! Ahhhh!)

At least you post them to emphasise a point.;)