Loose Change - Part III

[Apollyon]

Yeah, and you can get them at WalMart for $24.63 each.
Well I feel safer then. That price puts them beyond the purchasing power of most CTs. Buying one would take up weeks worth of their allowance.

[Brainster]

Jon Ronson's documentary of David Icke's trip to Canada is illustrative of how not to counter a conspiracist:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2912878405399014351&q=david+icke+lizards+jews+ronson

The moral of the story: Make no attempt to limit their exposure. Stick to their claims.

Exactly. Efforts to silence viewpoints you disagree with are every bit as offensive as Icke's nuttery. I was astounded that the people organizing the pie-throwing didn't seem to get it. The reptilian costumes were a great idea ruined by a bad one--talk about the turd in the punchbowl!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The fed is secretly involved in their illuminati/jewish bankers/bohemian grove conspiracy theories in how a secret cabal runs the world. The most amusing one I saw was when someone pointed out (correctly) that the fed holds a couple of hundred billion dollars in treasuries. The fed uses this to regulate money supply and keep inflation in check (called the Federal Open Market Committee). It is true, being the central bank, they essentially create money by buying and selling bonds.

Anyway this Looser insisted that these secret banking cabals just create all the money they want to buy bonds and then pocket the billions in interest.

No. If they did this inflation would skyrocket and Ben Bernanke would be called in front of the Senate rather harshly. They maintain the money supply in keeping with the principles of the fed, which are economic growth and low inflation, any interest paid on the bonds, in excess of the cost of running the fed, is refunded to the US treasury, to the tune of tens of billions a year.

OK, that is the end of my finance lecture for today. For hot stock tips, please send a check or money order for $99.95 to...

Is this a bad time to mention that I once ran for elective office under the banner of the Social Credit Party of Alberta? ;)

[Abbyas]

Social Credit Party of Alberta

Mastercard for the masses?

[MarkyX]

Off-topic but..wow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDzqTVTrRAk

Alex Jones is Darth Vader.

EDIT: And Palpatine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2hqIzOeVvE

[milesalpha]

Is this a bad time to mention that I once ran for elective office under the banner of the Social Credit Party of Alberta? ;)

Good god, they have been dead since the 70s haven't they?

<lived through the reign of Prince Peter>

[JamesB]

Off-topic but..wow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDzqTVTrRAk

Alex Jones is Darth Vader.

EDIT: And Palpatine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2hqIzOeVvE

If someone proved a definitive link between George W. Bush and the creation of Star Wars : Episode 1, I would sign on to support his impeachment.

[Kent1]

I thought I would post one of Jones newer papers here

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf


This one is full of all kinds of wild claims.
He now seems to support the no plane at the Pentagon.

One claim I've seen before is about the bridge.
He states that a bridge didn't melt reported by CBS news where there was a large fuel spill.

Ok so then I look up the article from cbsnews
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/26/national/main608802.shtml
"Northbound Traffic Resumes At Site Of Melted Bridge"

Northbound lanes reopened Sunday on a stretch of one of the nation's busiest highways, three days after a fire from a wrecked tanker truck partially melted an overpass.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:oUa17bybCrAJ:www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t3161.html+%22It+was+such+an+intense+heat+that+it+ melted+the+bridge,%22+said+Wallace+Thomas,+Bridgep ort%27s+deputy+fire+chief.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Another article....
It was such an intense heat that it melted the bridge,'' said Wallace Thomas, Bridgeport's deputy fire chief. ``Once it sagged, it made a pool of burning fuel oil.''

Hmm,... sagging, pooling...claims of melted steel,....where have I heard that before?

[Gravy]

I thought I would post one of Jones newer papers here

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf
Yeah, I've perused that rambling wreck of a presentation. Like the Loosers, the more Jones speaks out, the less credibility he has. Here's one example. He cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite:
Jones:
Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...
What's the real story?
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=168805&category=SEP11&BCCode=SEP11&newsdate=7/15/2006
What a hideous fraud Jones is.

[Kent1]

Yeah, I've perused that rambling wreck of a presentation. Like the Loosers, the more Jones speaks out, the less credibility he has. Here's one example. He cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite:
Jones:

What's the real story?

What a hideous fraud Jones is.

Well he's having trouble with his sulfer, considering there are much more obvious sources, so he has to move on to something else. I wonder if he's figured out that bowing floors can hold pooling metal yet.

Cause according to Jones this can't happen. LOL!!!
From Jones....
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. "

The line before it is equally stupid

"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. "

But in his own paper it says that 1000C is possible. Twice, in Section 11 and 12. In fact NIST tests showed 1100C was likely and many other tests have shown that hydrocarbon fires can get hotter. Not to mention the fact that not all of the building had dark-smoke.

This guy is painting himself into a corner.
I don't know if he's doing this on purpose or a combination of the two. (Believes but doesn't care)
He can't be this dumb. He recommends we start gathering water and getting ready for some sort of civil war.

[JamesB]

Yeah, I've perused that rambling wreck of a presentation. Like the Loosers, the more Jones speaks out, the less credibility he has. Here's one example. He cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite:
Jones:

What's the real story?

What a hideous fraud Jones is.

This guy cracks me up.

Can you imagine Professor Steven Jones CSI:

"Dr. Jones, we found a victim washed up on the beach, drowned, with salt water in his lungs"

"Hmm, that can only mean one thing. Check the lobster tanks in all the seafood restaurants in the area. He was obviously drowned there and dumped on the beach."

[WildCat]

National Geographic Channel, right now. Demolishing Busch Stadium w/ wrecking balls. Watch how the concrete collapses amid a cloud of dust, no explosives used at all. And it doesn't fall nearly as far as the WTC.

[Kent1]

This guy cracks me up.

Can you imagine Professor Steven Jones CSI:

"Dr. Jones, we found a victim washed up on the beach, drowned, with salt water in his lungs"

"Hmm, that can only mean one thing. Check the lobster tanks in all the seafood restaurants in the area. He was obviously drowned there and dumped on the beach."
Did you see that he uses the "process of transformation...new Pearl Harbor" quote.
He also uses the put options and.......Judy (cause buildings are like trees) Wood.
Bah ha ha ha....

[Kent1]

Anyone want to read Jones first draft?


http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones .htm

He drops concrete blocks....

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. :jaw-dropp

He had to drop a block to figure that out that it doesn't pulverize???
And this guy teaches what?

Or this...
Essentially none of these science-based considerations
is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this
subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M.
Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.)

[dubfan]

Anyone want to read Jones first draft?


http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones .htm

He drops concrete blocks....

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. :jaw-dropp

He had to drop a block to figure that out that it doesn't pulverize???
And this guy teaches what?

Or this...
Essentially none of these science-based considerations
is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this
subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M.
Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.)

OMG

This pathetic fool has completely lost his mind, if he ever had one to begin with. Before this, I had marginally more respect for Jones than Judy Wood and the chicken-wire-and-cup-o-kerosene guy...but not anymore.

[apathoid]

Anyone want to read Jones first draft?


http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones .htm

He drops concrete blocks....

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. :jaw-dropp

B]
Where in the heck did this guy get a Physics PhD?

How does his thermite/thermate account for pulverized concrete anyways? Its an incendiary, correct. So, he thinks explosives were used in addition to Thermate/ite just to pulverize concrete for no apparent reason other than to give a few internet detectives a "smoking gun" to find?

[Gravy]

Anyone want to read Jones first draft?
He drops concrete blocks....

To be fair, he's not a young guy, and I'm sure it's been a long time since he took basic physics.

[JamesB]

To be fair, he's not a young guy, and I'm sure it's been a long time since he took basic physics.

The punk is even lying in his slides. Look at page 98:

"The process of transformation, [since] it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

But that is not what the quote says. The original quote is:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

He just uses the brackets to change the meaning of the quote! Yeah, that is real academic research!

[Kent1]

The punk is even lying in his slides. Look at page 98:



But that is not what the quote says. The original quote is:



He just uses the brackets to change the meaning of the quote! Yeah, that is real academic research!

He has a habit of doing that crap. He re-writes his sources.
He did that with FEMA, with Manning. He also used a doctored photo once where he (or someone else) cranked up the contrast....then stated how the white blobs were evidence of thermite.
He fixed it later after he got caught...but here are the photos

Jones version with "white blobs":
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=1846350
Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spirewtc1original1200x16009as.jpg

[gtc]

He just uses the brackets to change the meaning of the quote! Yeah, that is real academic research!

There was a game show like that called 'Blankety Blanks', where the host took a quote and replaced some of the words with Blanks. The contestants had to come up with funny phrases.

For instance they might have taken your quote and turned it into:

He just uses the [BLANK] to change the [BLANK] of the [BLANK]! Yeah, that is real [BLANK] [BLANK]!

Quite a funny concept, but not academically rigorous.

[kevin]

How does his thermite/thermate account for pulverized concrete anyways? Its an incendiary, correct. So, he thinks explosives were used in addition to Thermate/ite just to pulverize concrete for no apparent reason other than to give a few internet detectives a "smoking gun" to find?

He seems to have missed a few steps in his test. What happens when you drop the brick 100 times more (once for each floor it hit) each time adding a brick to the load.

He seems to think each floor fell only 12 feet, and the mass (and therefore force) didn't increase as the floors accumulated together.

[twinstead]

How does his thermite/thermate account for pulverized concrete anyways? Its an incendiary, correct. So, he thinks explosives were used in addition to Thermate/ite just to pulverize concrete for no apparent reason other than to give a few internet detectives a "smoking gun" to find?

Cursed whistle blowers! Foiled again!

[gumboot]

He also used a doctored photo once where he (or someone else) cranked up the contrast....then stated how the white blobs were evidence of thermite.

:jaw-dropp

This guy is a lunatic! It's so obvious that photo has its contrast cranked up!

I didn't even need to see the comparison first... the first photo looked like a high-bit photo that had been degenerated down to a low-bit gif. The contrast was through the roof!

:covereyes when will the madness end?

-Andrew

[The_Fire]

Christ! Doesn't the idiot know that when you crank up the contrast, you loose details in the bright end of the histogram?! The end result looks like a really badly damaged paperfoto.

[kookbreaker]

Well, heck, I'm still laughing at Jones' attempt to take a chunk of concrete and claim it was cooled melted steel. There was rebar sticking out of the dang thing!

What's more fun was those CT's who bought it. "Concrete isn't rust colored". :D

[jhunter1163]

Hello everyone, my name is John and I'm a regular guy from Connecticut.. I just stumbled across this film on the Net and it contains so much concentrated absurdity, I hardly know where to begin.. but there's one point I just had to bring up here.. the video of the collapse of WTC 7 that purports to show the building falling at "free-fall speed" is truncated.. the CTs start the video about two seconds after the actual collapse began.. there were TWO penthouses atop WTC 7, but in the video they like to show (the one showing the "squibs") one has already collapsed.. you can see the full video at 911myths, which pretty thoroughly debunks many of the Looseniks' arguments... sorry if this site has already been referenced, I know there are literally thousands of posts in this thread... thanks for reading.

John

[60hzxtl]

Welcome Jhunter,

If you have a summer off, you can catch up on the three (3!!!) threads here.

Your comment is the first I've heard of that point, and well taken. I similarly (re)found this sight after some one I know sent me to see that idiotic film - the more examination the sillier it becomes.

I stay because I never want to live to see the bilge water presented by the nutters used by the defense in any trial of a genuine bad guy. I don't ever want to see a Jones, or a Fetzer become an "expert" witness.

These idiots are making their career, or gaining their tenure at spineless ivory towers, where "controversy" outweighs scholarship, and brings in $$ to build the University's new sports complex. (Flat earther's and witch burners, and alchemists are passe you know.)

Add some professional malcontents, mix in a bit of anarchist, and give them a ring master in the center ring, call him Dylan Avery, and you have the Circus of Loose Change.

[delphi_ote]

Christ! Doesn't the idiot know that when you crank up the contrast, you loose details in the bright end of the histogram?! The end result looks like a really badly damaged paperfoto.
Oh no! I just turned on the thermite detector on my T.V. and that stuff is everywhere!

[jhunter1163]

I read a book once upon a time (back in the 90's) entitled "Bad Science" about cold fusion.. and, as I recall, this guy Steven Jones was one of the biggest proponents. So when I saw his name attached to this, I knew to take it with a grain of salt. After reading the criticisms of his "research" here, anything he produces in the future will be taken with a grain of salt the size of my car.

[kookbreaker]

I read a book once upon a time (back in the 90's) entitled "Bad Science" about cold fusion.. and, as I recall, this guy Steven Jones was one of the biggest proponents. So when I saw his name attached to this, I knew to take it with a grain of salt. After reading the criticisms of his "research" here, anything he produces in the future will be taken with a grain of salt the size of my car.

That's a good book. Jones gets off light compared to Pons and Fleischmann, but he still gets pretty lambasted for his antics.

[Gravy]

Hello everyone, my name is John and I'm a regular guy from Connecticut.. I just stumbled across this film on the Net and it contains so much concentrated absurdity, I hardly know where to begin.. but there's one point I just had to bring up here.. the video of the collapse of WTC 7 that purports to show the building falling at "free-fall speed" is truncated.. the CTs start the video about two seconds after the actual collapse began.. there were TWO penthouses atop WTC 7, but in the video they like to show (the one showing the "squibs") one has already collapsed.. you can see the full video at 911myths, which pretty thoroughly debunks many of the Looseniks' arguments... sorry if this site has already been referenced, I know there are literally thousands of posts in this thread... thanks for reading.

John
Welcome jhunter. Thanks for pointing that out. The Loosers did the same thing with the video of the collapse of the south tower: cut off the first two seconds. They don't edit, they circumcise.

[aggle-rithm]

That's a good book. Jones gets off light compared to Pons and Fleischmann, but he still gets pretty lambasted for his antics.

He probably got off light by following standard CT operating procedure: Make your claims vague, tentative, and displaying no intellectual courage.

[chipmunk stew]

The British 9/11 Truth Campaign appears very open to good debate, and they appear to have people who will engage in a much more sophisticated and mature manner than those we engaged with at the Loose Change forum. Please join me and Gravy in the discussion:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12648#12648
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12630#12630

[jhunter1163]

You're right, Kookbreaker, that is a good book, and I recommend it to anyone wishing to gain insight into Jones's "scientific method", although Pons and Fleischmann did get the brunt of the ridicule.

[CptColumbo]

Welcome jhunter,

I think the thing that seperates you and most of us from the current CT crowd is that we read books. We do not rely on the internet for all our information.

[jhunter1163]

Thanks CptColumbo.. that and we do not live in CT Land, where erroneous initial reports are never corrected, everything on the Internet is gospel, and the world is controlled by Skull and Bones members. *rolls eyes*

[Hellbound]

Well, you know that's true.

The world is actually controlled by a small, select, secretive group of people who, unfortunately, do not include any of my family or friends (so no free airfare or assasinations).

Welcome aboard :)

[60hzxtl]

Ok, jhunter explain this discrepency:

In your first post you say: "I'm a regular guy from Connecticut. . . "

In your 4th post you say:

"that and we do not live in CT Land,"

:confused:

Did you move from Connecticut that fast?????:duck:


Sorry, couldn't help myself!

[jhunter1163]

LOL 60hzxtl.. I suppose the conspiracy-minded would take that discrepancy and combine it with my membership in a secret society in eighth grade (we were called the Warlocks, and tried to project the impression of dabbling in the occult when in fact the entire purpose of the organization was to put together enough resources to purchase a extra-large bag of nacho cheese Doritos and a 12-pack of Coke) and turn me into some kind of Communist-sympathizing disinformationist. Although I suppose pooling our resources like that does smack of communism...

[60hzxtl]

Although I suppose pooling our resources like that does smack of communism...


Only if you ate more than your share. . .

[kookbreaker]

He probably got off light by following standard CT operating procedure: Make your claims vague, tentative, and displaying no intellectual courage.

As I recall from the book, when Jones was speaking in professional circles, he was very conservative about what his findings meant. No hype, no assumptions, even acknowledging that he could be wrong about the whole thing.

In informal circles he couldn't stop talking about desktop Cold Fusion generators.

What is frightening is that when Jones showed up on the CT scene he billed himself as 'one of the first to debunk Pons & Fleischmann'. Wow, talk about revisionism.

[Gravy]

Did you move from Connecticut that fast?????:duck:

Sorry, couldn't help myself!
He wanted to avoid guilt by abbreviation.

[chipmunk stew]

He wanted to avoid guilt by abbreviation.
:bricks:

[rikzilla]

The British 9/11 Truth Campaign appears very open to good debate, and they appear to have people who will engage in a much more sophisticated and mature manner than those we engaged with at the Loose Change forum. Please join me and Gravy in the discussion:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12648#12648
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12630#12630


I'm there man....just call me Mr. Ref. ;)

-z

[MarkyX]

An interesting thread on the Professional Pilots board.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233975

[DavidJames]

The British 9/11 Truth Campaign appears very open to good debate, and they appear to have people who will engage in a much more sophisticated and mature manner than those we engaged with at the Loose Change forum. Please join me and Gravy in the discussion:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12648#12648
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12630#12630Just read through both threads, it's loose change all over again, only with different names. Same questions, same sarcasm, same lack of evidence.

[Mancman]

Just read through both threads, it's loose change all over again, only with different names. Same questions, same sarcasm, same lack of evidence.

Yep, I got the exact same impression.

[chipmunk stew]

Just read through both threads, it's loose change all over again, only with different names. Same questions, same sarcasm, same lack of evidence.It's starting to feel that way. Down to the well-considered YAWN response. One guy called DeFecToR and a couple others give me some hope. And they don't seem inclined to knee-jerk suspensions. Although Ally is calling for a "Troll Hole" subforum. *sigh*... I'm going to give it some time.

[60hzxtl]

Just read through both threads, it's loose change all over again, only with different names. Same questions, same sarcasm, same lack of evidence.


Don't get sore at them, just like the ct'ers here, they're still waiting for the Check to arrive because, don't forget, Bill Gates is going to share his personal fortune with them!

[DavidJames]

It's starting to feel that way. Down to the well-considered YAWN response. One guy called DeFecToR and a couple others give me some hope. And they don't seem inclined to knee-jerk suspensions. Although Ally is calling for a "Troll Hole" subforum. *sigh*... I'm going to give it some time.I hope I didn't come off, with my response, poorly. I am envious of yours, Gravy's and others willingness and ability to jump into whatever CT cesspool presents itself yet maintain your composure and ability to take the high road.

[Belz...]

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed.

:jaw-dropp

Holy mother of...

Doesn't anyone in the CT crowd know anything about SCALE ?

[Belz...]

Christ! Doesn't the idiot know that when you crank up the contrast, you loose details in the bright end of the histogram?! The end result looks like a really badly damaged paperfoto.

Didn't someone post a link where this girl thought she saw signs of a reptilian invasion based on highly-photoshopped pictures ?

[Bronze Dog]

This girl? (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/07/13/wiola/)

[Belz...]

This girl? (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/07/13/wiola/)

I do believe that was her, though it doesn't link to the same web page. If it isn't her it's a reasonable facsimile.

[MarkyX]

I want to shoot myself now.

Someone on my YouTube video is claiming that he is an engineer and many other engineers disagree with the official theory, and that the fires couldn't have gone higher then 200 degrees celcius (I cook my pizza at 400 degrees!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGscWP5Osw

http://www.doctorsecrets.com/your-mind/suicide.gif

[jhunter1163]

200 C = 392 F, just below pizza-baking temp. Maybe you'd only use 375 if you wanted a softer crust. But your point is made.

[Abbyas]

Someone on my YouTube video is claiming that he is an engineer and many other engineers disagree with the official theory, and that the fires couldn't have gone higher then 200 degrees celcius (I cook my pizza at 400 degrees!)

Not that I'm one to defend woos, but I think we have a F/C issue here. You'd have one singed pizza at 400 C.

ETA: NEVERMIND

[jhunter1163]

Also, by that logic, paper shouldn't have ignited (remember Fahrenheit 451). I think we can all draw our own conclusions on this "engineer".

[The_Fire]

Singed?! The bloody thing would be on fire! If you can get a normal household oven which goes that high!

ETA: Nevermind. It was that fahrenheit thing the americans seems to favour again....*mumbles* Ruddy yanks and their weird systems....

[MarkyX]

Not that I'm one to defend woos, but I think we have a F/C issue here. You'd have one singed pizza at 400 C.

ETA: NEVERMIND

What the hell have I been doing for the past ten years cooking left over pizza? 450 to be precise, for 4 minutes.

EDIT: Damnit, now I just found it's not C. Stupid American Ovens not labeling their temperature. Now I know I leave the cooking to women (sorry Abby and The_Fire!)

[Gravy]

What the hell have I been doing for the past ten years cooking left over pizza? 450 to be precise, for 4 minutes.
ETA. Nevermind also.
I like pizza.
Carry on.

[Mancman]

I want to shoot myself now.

Someone on my YouTube video is claiming that he is an engineer and many other engineers disagree with the official theory, and that the fires couldn't have gone higher then 200 degrees celcius (I cook my pizza at 400 degrees!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGscWP5Osw

http://www.doctorsecrets.com/your-mind/suicide.gif

Oh god, I don't even bother with youtube comments anymore. They're even more infuriating than the Loose Change forum. I recently had someone say 'no your wrong the towers came down in 8 seconds top to bottom'. It might as well be renamed wootube.

And a question to all - Silverstein Group bought the WTC lease from the NYPA for $3.2 billion dollars. But how much of this was eventually paid back to the Port Authority? All of it? Any of it? :confused:

[WildCat]

IIRC, to cook a proper Chicago deep dish pizza you need 600 F. Which is why you can't make one at home.

[MarkyX]

Okay so I decided to check out some conversations..

I warm up my pizza at 450-470 F for 4 minutes

450F - 232 C
470F - 243 C

So what this "engineer" is stating is that the fires in the world trade center, or more specifically, the "pockets of fire", could not have produced more heat then my oven (despite the carbon-based material, plastics, chairs, carpetting, the drywall, and the fuel)

:eek:

Please don't tell me that I just owned a college-educated "engineer"

[Abbyas]

So what this "engineer" is stating is that the fires in the world trade center, or more specifically, the "pockets of fire", could not have produced more heat then my oven (despite the carbon-based material, plastics, chairs, carpetting, the drywall, and the fuel)

I've heard this bs, that there were no raging fires in the towers. I remember walking over the brooklyn bridge that day after the first tower went down and before the second one did. The fires were so large, that from where I was, you could see details in the individual flames.

Grumblegmblgestupidgrmblegrmblectidiotsgrmblegrmbl e.

[jhunter1163]

Silverstein is still paying $120M/year to the Port Authority. Seems that having your building destroyed doesn't let you out of the lease. Also, the towers were insured for considerably less than replacement cost. I guess Silverstein didn't expect to have to replace them...

(edited for grammar)

[realitybites]

Is this a new thing with the woo? I know the temperature of the fires has always a bone of contention with them, but there seems to be a new wave of people spouting off ridiculously low temps.

One guy over at LC yesterday said the towers didn't even reach 200 degrees F. (He later admitted he might have exaggerated.) But still....

Common sense should enter into the equation at some point, no?

[chipmunk stew]

This quote from ian neal, one of The British 9/11 Truth Campaign's board Organisers, is very encouraging:
Hi Ally

I'm not having a go but I do seem to make this point quite often. You know when you (and other campaigners) go on other boards that are vehemently anti-conspiracy theories and we get labelled fruitloop, wingbat, conspiraloon, right-wing nutjobs and similar ad hominem attacks. And that can be a pretty irritating and effective method of derailing any discussion and turning readers off.

Well the same applies here. Everytime 'we' accuse someone of being a shill, troll, disinformationist or spook (based on zero evidence other than they don't agree), it pisses them off and make the whole dialogue antagonistic. This is taken as proof by our critics that 'we' are all closed minded, fundamentalist fanatics who are unwilling to engage in evidence based debate. I've seen this happen.

Sure engaging with our critics can be tedious and repetative. My advice is if it is boring don't bother replying to tedious people.

Your idea of a troll hole (or a separate area where we debate our critics) was suggested by me earlier on in the Rachel thread and was not widely supported and I don't feel it is requiredhttp://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12778#12778
What a contrast from TheQuest!

[Mancman]

Silverstein is still paying $120M/year to the Port Authority. Seems that having your building destroyed doesn't let you out of the lease. Also, the towers were insured for considerably less than replacement cost. Seems Silverstein didn't expect to have to replace them...

Ah right. So he's paid about $600 million so far.

From 911myths - "That lease envisions a rent increase in August 2006 to $138 million a year."

At $138 million a year he'll pay off the remaining $2.6 billion in 18.8 years. He'll be dead by then. :boggled:

[azazal]

Is this a new thing with the woo? I know the temperature of the fires has always a bone of contention with them, but there seems to be a new wave of people spouting off ridiculously low temps.

One guy over at LC yesterday said the towers didn't even reach 200 degrees F. (He later admitted he might have exaggerated.) But still....

Common sense should enter into the equation at some point, no?

Common sense and CTers, ah now that'sa good laugh

[Gravy]

At $138 million a year he'll pay off the remaining $2.6 billion in 18.8 years. He'll be dead by then. :boggled:
Nah. He was fitted with remote-control by Marvin Bush in August of 2001. He is now immortal and unstoppable. He eats superthermite for breakfast. His next mission will be to pull all the missiles in North Korea (his handlers are keeping him away from the Middle East).

[chipmunk stew]

I just got an email from Jon Ronson. He has registered here and is waiting for approval, so I expect we'll be seeing him on the boards before long.

[chipmunk stew]

Ah right. So he's paid about $600 million so far.

From 911myths - "That lease envisions a rent increase in August 2006 to $138 million a year."

At $138 million a year he'll pay off the remaining $2.6 billion in 18.8 years. He'll be dead by then. :boggled:Boy, he really didn't think this conspiracy thing through, did he?

1. Destroy my own buildings
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!! D'OH!!!

[kookbreaker]

Is this a new thing with the woo? I know the temperature of the fires has always a bone of contention with them, but there seems to be a new wave of people spouting off ridiculously low temps.

One guy over at LC yesterday said the towers didn't even reach 200 degrees F. (He later admitted he might have exaggerated.) But still....

Common sense should enter into the equation at some point, no?

This is usually based on some very selective cherry picking from the NIST report. At one point, NIST tested the peeled paint on some of the columns that they were able to identify and were exposed to fire. This meant the columns were perimeter columns since the other had their paint burned off or blown off. In any case, the tests showed the perimeter columns reach about 200 degrees (C or F I cannot remember). This test was of importance to the NIST since it showed the it was not the perimeter columns that failed.

But of course, the woowoos cherry picked it and exclaimed that "NIST said WTC temperatures never got above 200!!!!!! PWNED!!!!"

Of course, temperatures got well above 200. The actual tempertaure the failed columns will never be determined since you cannot test bare steel to see how hot it got.

I have not seen this youtube video, but is there any proof that this person is actually an engineer?

[Mancman]

Boy, he really didn't think this conspiracy thing through, did he?

1. Destroy my own buildings
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!! D'OH!!!

I was bored recently and worked out some basic analysis of Silverstein's losses. As we know, he has recieved $5 billion in insurance, often used as CT evidence usually tying in with 'pull it'. But I've never seen any CTer factor in the loss of office rental.


He owned leases on the following buildings, and owned WTC7 outright:

WTC7 - 1,868,000sqft
WTC5 – 784,000sqft
WTC4 – 576,000sqft
WTC2 – 4,761,000sqft
WTC1 – 4,761,000sqft

Total: 12,750,000sqft.

I've not found any figures which state how much of the complex was under rent on 9/11, so i'll estimate it was 90%. And i'll estimate an average office rent of $50 per square foot. A little high, possibly, but asking prices for vacant suites at WTC were in that ballpark: http://www.unblinking.com/arc/2001-09c.htm

12,750,000sqft x 0.9 = 11,475,000sqft. X $50 = $573,750,000 loss per year.
Upto 9/11/2006, Silverstein would have lost $573,750,000 x 5 = $2,868,750,000 in office rent.
Add the $600m in rental paid to the PA, and the loss grows to $3,468,750,000 by September 11th, 2006.


But this can be taken further. The 'Freedom Tower' is now under construction, but not due to finish until 2011, and even then it will be 2.3m sqft which is about 50% the size of one of the twins. The rest of the buildings are due later than that.
At this point, WTC7 is subtracted from the equation since the new one opened in June 2006, though it was only 25% pre-let when it opened, so there will be further losses here, but it is removed to keep things simple.


Subtracting a 90% let WTC7 leaves us with 9,793,800sqft to calculate the loss between 2006-2011.

9,793,800 x $50 = $489,690,000 loss per year.
x 5 = $2,448,450,000 loss.
Add the $630m in rent that would be paid in those 5 years at £138m a year, and we have a total of $3,078,450,000.

Total ten year loss on office rents: $5,317,200,000
Portion of original lease paid from 2001-2011: $1,230,000,000

It would be interesting to refine these figures with more accurate data for the average office rent price and the amount of space which was occupied on 9/11.

[chipmunk stew]

I was bored recently and worked out some basic analysis of Silverstein's losses. As we know, he has recieved $5 billion in insurance, often used as CT evidence usually tying in with 'pull it'. But I've never seen any CTer factor in the loss of office rental.


He owned leases on the following buildings, and owned WTC7 outright:

WTC7 - 1,868,000sqft
WTC5 – 784,000sqft
WTC4 – 576,000sqft
WTC2 – 4,761,000sqft
WTC1 – 4,761,000sqft

Total: 12,750,000sqft.

I've not found any figures which state how much of the complex was under rent on 9/11, so i'll estimate it was 90%. And i'll estimate an average office rent of $50 per square foot. A little high, possibly, but asking prices for vacant suites at WTC were in that ballpark: http://www.unblinking.com/arc/2001-09c.htm

12,750,000sqft x 0.9 = 11,475,000sqft. X $50 = $573,750,000 loss per year.
Upto 9/11/2006, Silverstein would have lost $573,750,000 x 5 = $2,868,750,000 in office rent.
Add the $600m in rental paid to the PA, and the loss grows to $3,468,750,000 by September 11th, 2006.


But this can be taken further. The 'Freedom Tower' is now under construction, but not due to finish until 2011, and even then it will be 2.3m sqft which is about 50% the size of one of the twins. The rest of the buildings are due later than that.
At this point, WTC7 is subtracted from the equation since the new one opened in June 2006, though it was only 25% pre-let when it opened, so there will be further losses here, but it is removed to keep things simple.


Subtracting a 90% let WTC7 leaves us with 9,793,800sqft to calculate the loss between 2006-2011.

9,793,800 x $50 = $489,690,000 loss per year.
x 5 = $2,448,450,000 loss.
Add the $630m in rent that would be paid in those 5 years at £138m a year, and we have a total of $3,078,450,000.

Total ten year loss on office rents: $5,317,200,000
Portion of original lease paid from 2001-2011: $1,230,000,000

It would be interesting to refine these figures with more accurate data for the average office rent price and the amount of space which was occupied on 9/11.And that's just loss in lease income. How much are the rebuilding costs?

[JamesB]

Okay so I decided to check out some conversations..

I warm up my pizza at 450-470 F for 4 minutes

450F - 232 C
470F - 243 C

So what this "engineer" is stating is that the fires in the world trade center, or more specifically, the "pockets of fire", could not have produced more heat then my oven (despite the carbon-based material, plastics, chairs, carpetting, the drywall, and the fuel)

:eek:

Please don't tell me that I just owned a college-educated "engineer"

Yeah, Fetzer goes on about this. He insists the fires didn't top 500 degrees, although the previous fire they had at the world trade center was over 2000. He never explains why this fire is so much cooler.

[jhunter1163]

Last estimate I saw for total project rebuilding cost (this was from Silverstein himself) was $12 billion over 10 years (includes Freedom Tower and ancillary structures). I've seen varying figures for the amount of insurance he had but none of them were close to $12 billion. "Who benefits from 9/11?" Sure doesn't seem to be Silverstein...

[Kent1]

Yeah, Fetzer goes on about this. He insists the fires didn't top 500 degrees, although the previous fire they had at the world trade center was over 2000. He never explains why this fire is so much cooler.

That's ripped from here
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html


I'll bet he meant to say 700C. Again he takes from a poor source to begin with (WHR) and only makes it worse.
This is the site were nes gets much of his info from. Its run by Michael Rivero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Rivero

[Brainster]

Silverstein is still paying $120M/year to the Port Authority. Seems that having your building destroyed doesn't let you out of the lease. Also, the towers were insured for considerably less than replacement cost. I guess Silverstein didn't expect to have to replace them...

(edited for grammar)

This is one area where I can provide some "expert" knowledge, as a former commercial loan officer and underwriter. Buildings are typically not insured for the replacement cost, or even the replacement cost less accrued depreciation. Most lenders will insist on a policy to at least cover the loan amount; by all accounts Silverstein had to negotiate this with the money partners and tried to keep the insurable value as low as possible, because higher values require correspondingly higher premiums.

Of course, if he was running some sort of planned demolition, he would have wanted the insurable value to be as high as possible.

[Dave_46]

It really is very simple. If you can see flames then the temperature is at least 800 Centigrade. When you are looking at flames you are looking at glowing particulates (soot). The colour of the flames give an indication of temperature. I say again, if you can see flames the temperature is at least 800 C.

Dave

[MarkyX]

Good a link for this?

[JamesB]

This is one area where I can provide some "expert" knowledge, as a former commercial loan officer and underwriter. Buildings are typically not insured for the replacement cost, or even the replacement cost less accrued depreciation. Most lenders will insist on a policy to at least cover the loan amount; by all accounts Silverstein had to negotiate this with the money partners and tried to keep the insurable value as low as possible, because higher values require correspondingly higher premiums.

Of course, if he was running some sort of planned demolition, he would have wanted the insurable value to be as high as possible.

Exactly, it is a simple principle of indemnification. No insurance company is going to let you insure a property for more than it is worth, so the concept of buying a property for the sole purpose of destroying it for profit is a joke.

In fact, you can try this at home. I challenge one of the Loosers to go out, buy a brand new car, insure it, and then a week later burn it to a crisp. Then they can come back and tell us how much they made off the deal.

But hey, these are the same people who thought it was suspect that Marvin Bush was connected to one of the insurance companies. Because we all know how profitable it is for insurance companies to destroy the property they insure.

[chipmunk stew]

Yeah, Fetzer goes on about this. He insists the fires didn't top 500 degrees, although the previous fire they had at the world trade center was over 2000. He never explains why this fire is so much cooler.Everyone knows that smoke color is a very accurate temperature gauge, especially when you see it on a still image or video and you don't know what the camera settings were or whether you have your display monitor adjusted appropriately.

Since the smoke was a semi-dark matte gray according to the above technique, it indicates temperatures below 500C. It's cut and dried. 100% proof.

[MikeW]

Another point re: Silverstein and the insurers: despite some CTs talking about him making massive profits, the fact is the insurers still owe billions, and suggest the April agreement between the Port Authority and Silverstein means they might not pay some of it at all. As a result they're now being sued for the money, so we'll have to see what happens (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/430203p-362693c.html)

[MikeW]

Re: the black smoke, I recently added this quote to 911myths.com, from a fire investigator:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

[jhunter1163]

I can't post links yet because I'm too new, but if you Google "freedom tower project costs" you'll find the link to the Silverstein quote of $12 billion on the first page. It's an MSNBC story.

[chipmunk stew]

Another point re: Silverstein and the insurers: despite some CTs talking about him making massive profits, the fact is the insurers still owe billions, and suggest the April agreement between the Port Authority and Silverstein means they might not pay some of it at all. As a result they're now being sued for the money, so we'll have to see what happens (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/430203p-362693c.html) It also means we can put additional legal costs in the negative column.

[chipmunk stew]

I can't post links yet because I'm too new, but if you Google "freedom tower project costs" you'll find the link to the Silverstein quote of $12 billion on the first page. It's an MSNBC story.Thanks.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3757111/
$12 billion price tag
Silverstein has put the cost of the entire redevelopment project at up to $12 billion over 10 years. Previous estimates had put the cost at between $4 billion and $7 billion. The tower itself could cost $1.5 billion.
Silverstein expects $7 billion to come from insurance proceeds -- an amount that is the subject of a bitter lawsuit between the leaseholder and insurance companies. He has said $5 billion would come from government sources.

[Apollyon]

It really is very simple. If you can see flames then the temperature is at least 800 Centigrade. When you are looking at flames you are looking at glowing particulates (soot). The colour of the flames give an indication of temperature. I say again, if you can see flames the temperature is at least 800 C.

Dave
I don't know if I agree with your description of what constitutes a flame, but the 800C figure is probably pretty close, if not low-balling a bit:

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

Note that portions of the wiki article are under dispute.

[Brainster]

I was bored recently and worked out some basic analysis of Silverstein's losses. As we know, he has recieved $5 billion in insurance, often used as CT evidence usually tying in with 'pull it'. But I've never seen any CTer factor in the loss of office rental.


He owned leases on the following buildings, and owned WTC7 outright:

WTC7 - 1,868,000sqft
WTC5 – 784,000sqft
WTC4 – 576,000sqft
WTC2 – 4,761,000sqft
WTC1 – 4,761,000sqft

Total: 12,750,000sqft.

I've not found any figures which state how much of the complex was under rent on 9/11, so i'll estimate it was 90%. And i'll estimate an average office rent of $50 per square foot. A little high, possibly, but asking prices for vacant suites at WTC were in that ballpark: http://www.unblinking.com/arc/2001-09c.htm

12,750,000sqft x 0.9 = 11,475,000sqft. X $50 = $573,750,000 loss per year.
Upto 9/11/2006, Silverstein would have lost $573,750,000 x 5 = $2,868,750,000 in office rent.
Add the $600m in rental paid to the PA, and the loss grows to $3,468,750,000 by September 11th, 2006.


But this can be taken further. The 'Freedom Tower' is now under construction, but not due to finish until 2011, and even then it will be 2.3m sqft which is about 50% the size of one of the twins. The rest of the buildings are due later than that.
At this point, WTC7 is subtracted from the equation since the new one opened in June 2006, though it was only 25% pre-let when it opened, so there will be further losses here, but it is removed to keep things simple.


Subtracting a 90% let WTC7 leaves us with 9,793,800sqft to calculate the loss between 2006-2011.

9,793,800 x $50 = $489,690,000 loss per year.
x 5 = $2,448,450,000 loss.
Add the $630m in rent that would be paid in those 5 years at £138m a year, and we have a total of $3,078,450,000.

Total ten year loss on office rents: $5,317,200,000
Portion of original lease paid from 2001-2011: $1,230,000,000

It would be interesting to refine these figures with more accurate data for the average office rent price and the amount of space which was occupied on 9/11.

A number of points:

1. The insurance on the buildings included rent loss insurance. I am not sure if the insurers have started to pay out on this; I know that early on they were reluctant to do so until a settlement was reached on the single incident/two incidents argument, because they knew they'd just be funding the lawsuit against themselves.

2. The WTC was probably not generating $50/SF rents. A recent article about the new WTC 7 indicated that Silverstein only recently increased the asking rents on that building from $50/SF (http://www.nypost.com/realestate/comm/rent_hiked_at_7_wtc_comm_steve_cuozzo.htm). My guess is that the average rental was probably somewhere in the $30-$35/SF range, even if the asking rent was $50.

3. Although he certainly suffered loss of rents, don't forget that he also had no expenses that go along with those rents--no utilities, no janitorial service, no security expenses, no insurance expenses, and dramatically reduced real estate taxes. Most office buildings are leased on a gross basis, with the landlord responsible for all operating expenses. I don't know what office expenses are in New York but it would surprise me greatly if they aren't at least $10/SF.

[dubfan]

An interesting thread on the Professional Pilots board.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233975

Ah, I see legions of 757 and 767 pilots are lining up behind the CTs.

Not.

[dubfan]

IIRC, to cook a proper Chicago deep dish pizza you need 600 F. Which is why you can't make one at home.

Careful, you're going to give Judy Wood ideas. For her next trick, she's going to compare the WTC to a pizza. I expect more experiments from the chicken-wire-and-kerosene boy to follow.

[DavidJames]

Ah, I see legions of 757 and 767 pilots are lining up behind the CTs.

Not.johndoeX was pointed to that thread, he posted some stuff in that LC thread and told the person to post it over there and invite them to LC.

Sounds like he's afraid to leave the comfort and safety of his sandbox.

[Belz...]

I just got an email from Jon Ronson. He has registered here and is waiting for approval, so I expect we'll be seeing him on the boards before long.

Excellent! We need to replace those ninjas with fresh blood.

Humm... blood.

[Gravy]

WTC7 - 1,868,000sqft
WTC5 – 784,000sqft
WTC4 – 576,000sqft
WTC2 – 4,761,000sqft
WTC1 – 4,761,000sqft

Total: 12,750,000sqft.

Interesting calculations, Mancman. Boredom is a powerful motivator. :)
A few corrections: the square footage you're using is total floor plan space, including service cores and mechanical floors. Rentable space was about 25% less.

Silverstein Properties is to receive $4.6 billion in insurance payments, but only a portion has been paid. Anyone have an update on that? (ETA: MikeW covered this above.)

Edit: Interesting Oct., 2001 paper on potential 9/11 economic impact and rebuilding costs in NYC. The figures were very preliminary and inaccurate, but it's a sobering reminder of how many people and buildings were affected. One estimate puts the average downtown office rental at $75 per sq. ft., but that sounds awfully high, even considering the outrageous rises there during the dot-com boom. http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/reports/WTC_Attack_Oct_4-final.pdf

[Gravy]

3. Although he certainly suffered loss of rents, don't forget that he also had no expenses that go along with those rents--no utilities, no janitorial service, no security expenses, no insurance expenses, and dramatically reduced real estate taxes.
True except in building 7, which he owned.

[Apollyon]

Another point re: Silverstein and the insurers: despite some CTs talking about him making massive profits, the fact is the insurers still owe billions, and suggest the April agreement between the Port Authority and Silverstein means they might not pay some of it at all. As a result they're now being sued for the money, so we'll have to see what happens (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/430203p-362693c.html)
Keep in mind that the insurers and Silverstein are in on the plot together. They must be or else the insurance companies would see the troof presented in LC, know that Larry demoed the buildings, and refuse payment at all. That's why they're not demnading a "real" investigation too. ;)

[Mancman]

A number of points:

1. The insurance on the buildings included rent loss insurance. I am not sure if the insurers have started to pay out on this; I know that early on they were reluctant to do so until a settlement was reached on the single incident/two incidents argument, because they knew they'd just be funding the lawsuit against themselves.

2. The WTC was probably not generating $50/SF rents. A recent article about the new WTC 7 indicated that Silverstein only recently increased the asking rents on that building from $50/SF (http://www.nypost.com/realestate/comm/rent_hiked_at_7_wtc_comm_steve_cuozzo.htm). My guess is that the average rental was probably somewhere in the $30-$35/SF range, even if the asking rent was $50.

3. Although he certainly suffered loss of rents, don't forget that he also had no expenses that go along with those rents--no utilities, no janitorial service, no security expenses, no insurance expenses, and dramatically reduced real estate taxes. Most office buildings are leased on a gross basis, with the landlord responsible for all operating expenses. I don't know what office expenses are in New York but it would surprise me greatly if they aren't at least $10/SF.

Good points, of course. It was only a very basic bit of number crunching.....

[Brainster]

Good points, of course. It was only a very basic bit of number crunching.....

It's just rare that my specialized knowledge of commercial property comes up outside of business, so I couldn't resist. :D

[milesalpha]

This quote from ian neal, one of The British 9/11 Truth Campaign's board Organisers, is very encouraging:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=12778#12778
What a contrast from TheQuest!

Standing by that Chipmunk? Given my first exchange with them I really don't see much difference.
Already a call for a troll hole for those they cannot answer. Hope Ian continues to be a voice of reason, but he seems outnumbered.

[Class]

Does anyone happen to have that link of a collection of Alex Jones predictions that did not come true? It was posted in one of the 9/11 threads a day or two ago and I have searched all of them and can't find it.

[ktesibios]

This is usually based on some very selective cherry picking from the NIST report. At one point, NIST tested the peeled paint on some of the columns that they were able to identify and were exposed to fire. This meant the columns were perimeter columns since the other had their paint burned off or blown off. In any case, the tests showed the perimeter columns reach about 200 degrees (C or F I cannot remember). This test was of importance to the NIST since it showed the it was not the perimeter columns that failed.


Umm, I think the point of determining the maximum temperatures of identifiable perimeter column sections where such a determination was possible was to help validate the fire dynamics and fire-structure interface computer models.

The idea was that if the maximum temperatures predicted for a column in the same location as one which you could test after the fact were significantly higher than those determined by the physical analysis of recovered steel, it would prove that the modeling wasn't adequate. OTOH, if the model predictions jibed with what physical analysis showed, it would tend to support the accuracy and usefulness of the models.

They built cube farms, instrumented them and lit them on fire for much the same purpose- to validate the fire dynamics software against actual measurement.

What the CTers don't comprehend is that the relatively low temperatures those particular columns reached actually supports NIST's predictions of other structural members reaching much higher temperatures and indeed NIST's entire analysis of the probable collapse sequence.

[apathoid]

Does anyone happen to have that link of a collection of Alex Jones predictions that did not come true? It was posted in one of the 9/11 threads a day or two ago and I have searched all of them and can't find it.

"There is going to be more.
This is only the kick-off."

--Alex Jones, Infowars, Sept. 13, 2001

"Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable. & I am predicting that you will see a lot of conventional bombings...in the next year or so."
--Alex Jones, Infowars (10/18/01)

"Suitcase nukes are a virtual certainty."
--Alex Jones, Infowars (5/16/02)

They're preparing for new terrorist attacks that are much larger.
& they're planning to bring in foreign armies."
--Alex Jones, Infowars, 7/11/02

"They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack...
It's not a question of if & when it's gonna happen."
--Alex Jones, Infowars, 9/26/02

taken from perrylogan.org

Perry also has a "What Alex Jones believes" page that is hilarious(and quite possibly true)

[JamesB]

That's a good book. Jones gets off light compared to Pons and Fleischmann, but he still gets pretty lambasted for his antics.

I was going by a local library today and just happened to find a copy of that book. Rather interesting, there are a lot of parallels between his fervor for cold fusion and 9/11 theories.

[Brainster]

I was going by a local library today and just happened to find a copy of that book. Rather interesting, there are a lot of parallels between his fervor for cold fusion and 9/11 theories.

Heheh, great minds run in the same channels, eh? I picked up the book at my local library this morning!

I'll let you handle Dr Jones. :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

You guys are so cute!

[JamesB]

Heheh, great minds run in the same channels, eh? I picked up the book at my local library this morning!

I'll let you handle Dr Jones. :rolleyes:

Scary, and we live 1000 miles apart...

[milesalpha]

Ugh, I am out of the British forum. Really childish bunch. It is hilarious that they expect more evidence out of Gravy than they ever demand from Jones, but not surprising.

[Gravy]

Ugh, I am out of the British forum. Really childish bunch. It is hilarious that they expect more evidence out of Gravy than they ever demand from Jones, but not surprising.
I suppose I should mosey over there. I said I'd return today. At least some of them looked into a few debunking websites and read some of my docs. They don't seem to have had much exposure to critical thinkers, so I'm glad a few of us went there.

[milesalpha]

I suppose I should mosey over there. I said I'd return today. At least some of them looked into a few debunking websites and read some of my docs. They don't seem to have had much exposure to critical thinkers, so I'm glad a few of us went there.

Take a couch with you, last I read they were trying to analyze our psychological motives for posting there.

[Brainster]

And why I don't talk about his girlfriend. My new post at SLC (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/suckers.html).

[gumboot]

Keep in mind that the insurers and Silverstein are in on the plot together.


I just had this vision for a films script:



INT. DARK SMOKE-FILLED ROOM - NIGHT

A dozen men in expensive suits sit around a mahogany table in expensive leather chairs, smoking cigars. One by one they speak as a young, attractive blonde records their remarks.

BUSH: I want to invade Iraq. Blast that cursed Saddam! Daddy would be so proud.

Bush slams his fist on the table.

ENRON: No, we should invade Afghanistan. It's well past time to build that natural-gas pipeline that has been made redundant by the opening of the Russian Grid to Caspian Sea states.

The Enron offers up a detailed map of Afghanistan with the pipeline running through a region marked "Unstable region that requires US governance"

An imposing figure in traditional Arab garb with a handsome oiled beard leans back in his chair.

SAUDIS: This is all well and good, but what is in it for us?

BUSH: Well duh, what about that 168 trillion in gold you have stacked up in New York.

The Saudi leans forward, his eyes intent.

SAUDI: Go on.

BUSH: Steal it. It's no use sitting there. Go steal it.

SAUDI: Hmmm...Steal my own gold. I like the way you think.

RUMSFIELD: But Sir, how can you possibly achieve all of this?

Bush smiles wickedly

BUSH: It's elementary, Dear Rummy. Stands Gentleman, I would like you all to meet Silverstein and his insurers.

A tall serious Joo steps into the light of the dim lamps. Behind him stands a short balding man - the WTC insurer. He lays a plan of the World Trade Centre across the table.

SILVERSTEIN: For years I have wanted to demolish these cursed buildings so I can rebuild at a staggering loss.

INSURER: Our plan was to be simple, but I think we can all find an accomodation here.

The men share wicked grins. Bush digs into his briefcase and draws out a folio with "Operation Destruct0r" on it.

BUSH: Okay, so this is the plan. First we get some drones...

FADE OUT.

[JamesB]

I just had this vision for a films script:

Don't forget the A-3 Skywarriors. If you leave those out of the movie Karl Schwarz will be ticked.

[tacodaemon]

Didn't someone post a link where this girl thought she saw signs of a reptilian invasion based on highly-photoshopped pictures ?

That was this post of mine (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1729137&postcount=618) way back on page 16 of this thread.

[CptColumbo]

That was this post of mine (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1729137&postcount=618) way back on page 16 of this thread.
Geggy,
Your title as writing the "craziest thing I ever read," has been surpased by a mile with this.

ETA What Tacodaemon linked to not what Tacodaemon wrote.

[Regnad Kcin]

Geggy,
Your title as writing the "craziest thing I ever read," has been surpased by a mile with this...Oh. My. Lands.

Gets my vote for the Conspiracy Hall of Fame.

[blue_eastcoast]

Awesome. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1772645&postcount=87)

Awesome (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1558436&postcount=11)

Awesome. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1456582&postcount=18)


my god, I say that word a lot.

[Dave_46]

Good a link for this?

MarkyX

I assume that this is directed at me. Unfortunately I don't have a specific link. The concept that if there are flames then the temperature is at least 800 C is received wisdom at the UK Building Research Establishment Fire Research Station, where I worked for fifteen years (until I retired last week). When I joined the FRS it was part of the UK scientific Civil Service.

Dave

[Gravy]

Congrats on your retirement, Dave_46!

[Gravy]

A controversial TV campaign ad for Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine featuring video of the burning World Trade Center towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was doctored, U.S. News has learned. ...On the air in major Ohio markets since last Friday, the ad showed the towers, with the south building billowing smoke, which gradually drifts upward. In the video, the north tower, which was struck first on September 11, is undamaged.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060719/19dewinead.htm

[Belz...]

That was this post of mine (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1729137&postcount=618) way back on page 16 of this thread.

That's the one. Thanks.

[jhunter1163]

You guys may want to check out ny911truth.org...

Does the madness never end?

[Dave_46]

Congrats on your retirement, Dave_46!

Thanks - Unfortunately I need to look for some employment, the pension for the next five years won't be enough, and I'm only 60.

Dave

[kookbreaker]

You guys may want to check out ny911truth.org...

Does the madness never end?

Its the same old, same old.

[CptColumbo]

my god, I say that word a lot.
Ain't nothing wrong with that. I say dude almost every-other-word.

[realitybites]

The LC forums never cease to amaze me.

Raise your hand here if you knew that the AIDS epidemic is a fraud. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&st=0&#entry6207108)

[Gravy]

You guys may want to check out ny911truth.org...

Does the madness never end?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure which of their nutteries caught your eye.

[Hutch]

Well, between vacation and work I've hardly had a chance to view the LC Forum, but I note freind c0rbin is under pressure. Moving to engage...

[Pardalis]

The LC forums never cease to amaze me.

Raise your hand here if you knew that the AIDS epidemic is a fraud. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&st=0&#entry6207108)

*sigh*

To them, anything is possible.

Even the motion of the earth's tectonic plates are a conspiracy to them! :boggled:

[Shrinker]

The LC forums never cease to amaze me.

Raise your hand here if you knew that the AIDS epidemic is a fraud. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&st=0&#entry6207108)

Jeez, what idiots. You know I hear SETI is now using that forum as its control sample.

[Class]

A controversial TV campaign ad for Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine featuring video of the burning World Trade Center towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was doctored, U.S. News has learned. ...On the air in major Ohio markets since last Friday, the ad showed the towers, with the south building billowing smoke, which gradually drifts upward. In the video, the north tower, which was struck first on September 11, is undamaged.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060719/19dewinead.htm

It seems that they changed the ad, it now shows two undamaged World Trade towers.

The LC forums never cease to amaze me.

Raise your hand here if you knew that the AIDS epidemic is a fraud. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&st=0&#entry6207108)

Saw chucksheen posing this about a week or two ago and I just had to laugh. Of course, everyone who posted in the thread bought on to it.

I also thought I posted it here a few weeks back, but I'm probably just imagining it.

[Jono]

Watched this video recently (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1103725146236500421&q=the+great+illusion), somehow I do not swallow these conclusions, George Humphrey's own take on the "free fall" issue using Galileo had a bit of Icke's tinfoil hatter manner though. ;)

Are these "Loose Change"-esque videos made on a conveyor belt?

[jhunter1163]

Pardalis...

If you go to takingaim.info you can find a program that Ralph Schoenman did about that very topic, right after the tsunami in December 2004, it's still in their archives. Something about the US military/CIA causing the earthquake that led to the tsunami. It's program 050104, Tsunami Disaster and the Crisis of Humanity. You won't believe your ears...

[jhunter1163]

I was referring to the "Eyewitness Hoboken" business, which seems about as useful to me as "Eyewitness Albany" or something.. they're presenting it like you could see any kind of definitive details from Hoboken.. maybe you could hear it, but it would be like thunder, several seconds after you SAW it, useless as far as evidence.

[Brainster]

The LC forums never cease to amaze me.

Raise your hand here if you knew that the AIDS epidemic is a fraud. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&st=0&#entry6207108)

What I love is this reply (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&view=findpost&p=6207416):

Anyone here a biochemist, microbiologist, or even a virologist? Does anyone on this thread have a bachelor's of science atleast? How come you guys speak on authority in matters which you have not been trained in?

Oh, the irony!

[WildCat]

maybe you could hear it, but it would be like thunder, several seconds after you SAW it, useless as far as evidence.
Maybe the video where what is obviously wind noise on an improperly screened microphone is mistaken for explosions? Pure idiocy.

[Brainster]

I was referring to the "Eyewitness Hoboken" business, which seems about as useful to me as "Eyewitness Albany" or something.. they're presenting it like you could see any kind of definitive details from Hoboken.. maybe you could hear it, but it would be like thunder, several seconds after you SAW it, useless as far as evidence.

I liked it as history, but the analysis was nutty pseudo-science. I think the new version has the nukes in the basement theory. And yes, there is no way to tell whether what you're hearing on the tape is wind or explosions (or added after the fact). He did make an effort to adjust for the time delay though.

[bob_kark]

The LC forums never cease to amaze me.

Raise your hand here if you knew that the AIDS epidemic is a fraud. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8442&st=0&#entry6207108)
Ha! Yes and the Olympics are a Zionist plot to place arenas in specific locations so they can finally control plate tectonics! Damn those evil Joos!!

[Kent1]

Ha! Yes and the Olympics are a Zionist plot to place arenas in specific locations so they can finally control plate tectonics! Damn those evil Joos!!

Jones is ONLINE here......
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/118/pg1/srtpages

[Mr. Skinny]

Anyone here a biochemist, microbiologist, or even a virologist? Does anyone on this thread have a bachelor's of science atleast? How come you guys speak on authority in matters which you have not been trained in?
While I understand what this poster was trying to get at, in all fairness, I have a B.S., but it's in engineering and I know very little about biochemistry, microbiology, or virology. Not sure how many posters here have those kinds of degrees, and we have a much larger population than LC's forum.

[WildCat]

Jones is ONLINE here......
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/118/pg1/srtpages
His "answers" to his critics are simply links to his own ridiculous papers on his web site! :rolleyes:

[Kent1]

His "answers" to his critics are simply links to his own ridiculous papers on his web site! :rolleyes:

Well I posted something....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread217517/pg2

[JamesB]

Well I posted something....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread217517/pg2

Due to research and teaching commitments, I rarely have time to read and respond in the various forum discussions regarding 9/11.
In this case, I was invited to say something -- I will be brief.

As far as I know, he isn't researching cold fusion any more. And teaching isn't exactly taking up all his time:

No teaching assignments for Summer term 2006


http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personid=36 (http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personid=36)

So that super nano-thermate sol gel must really be eating into his schedule.

[gumboot]

And yes, there is no way to tell whether what you're hearing on the tape is wind or explosions (or added after the fact). He did make an effort to adjust for the time delay though.




Or someone touching the tripod. Or someone shutting car doors nearby. There's a good reason you don't use a camera mic for a film shoot - they're natoriously sensitive, and the slightest bump or movement is picked up.

Not to mention, if a camera so far away picks up these explosions, why do none of the myriad of footage shot directly under the towers catch it? It would be many times louder directly beneath the towers.

I would expect broken windows, perhaps even blown eardrums...

-Andrew

[CptColumbo]

I was watching "Dateline" tonight and they were looking at the movie World Trade Center, interviewing Oliver Stone and the actual NYPD people involved. Maybe it was my bad hearing (I do have significant loss in one ear), but it sounded like Will Jimeno said there was an "armory" in WTC7. Seriously I may have misheard it. BTW all the two officers heard was rumbling when the Tower they were under collapsed, not explosions. They didn't even know the whole thing had collapsed until they were rescued, they thought it was just the floor above them.

[Gravy]

I was watching "Dateline" tonight and they were looking at the movie World Trade Center, interviewing Oliver Stone and the actual NYPD people involved. Maybe it was my bad hearing (I do have significant loss in one ear), but it sounded like Will Jimeno said there was an "armory" in WTC7. Seriously I may have misheard it. BTW all the two officers heard was rumbling when the Tower they were under collapsed, not explosions. They didn't even know the whole thing had collapsed until they were rescued, they thought it was just the floor above them.
About the "Armory." Any building with intelligence and law enforcement offices will have gun lockers. AFAIK there was no big ordnance there.

[njslim]

IIRC - Secret Service had offices in building including armoury. Also NY City
OEM had HQ on 23th floor which included backup diesel power generators
feed from storage tanks onsite, small "day" of about 250 gal was inside
building to run generators, while main fuel storage was outside. Other
tenants (Saloman/Smith Barney) also had backup generators with fuel
storage. One of the theories is that leaking fuel from diesel generators helped
fuel the fires in building which triggered structural collapse.

[60hzxtl]

Or someone touching the tripod. Or someone shutting car doors nearby. There's a good reason you don't use a camera mic for a film shoot - they're natoriously sensitive, and the slightest bump or movement is picked up.

Not to mention, if a camera so far away picks up these explosions, why do none of the myriad of footage shot directly under the towers catch it? It would be many times louder directly beneath the towers.

I would expect broken windows, perhaps even blown eardrums...

-Andrew


Bless you says the soundman!

The equipment doesn't run itself and when it does, expect automatic gain control to be working in all the wrong directions.

[CptColumbo]

He was saying it in a way that implied a large armory ("the" armory). Maybe the transcript will be available soon.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Standing by that Chipmunk? Given my first exchange with them I really don't see much difference.
Already a call for a troll hole for those they cannot answer. Hope Ian continues to be a voice of reason, but he seems outnumbered.

A person claiming to be Kevin Barrett nw posting there, http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085

[karim]

Anyone here a biochemist, microbiologist, or even a virologist? Does anyone on this thread have a bachelor's of science atleast? How come you guys speak on authority in matters which you have not been trained in?


Well I'm studying to be a medical laboratory technician.:)

I watched the film and It basically was interesting theory, I just wonder why do all these CT films have to have Hitler and global conspiracy mentioned in them?

I can make one point about the evidence they present. This film was made in 1996 and as one piece of evidence they state that HIV does not cause AIDS because there are millions of people with HIV that do not develop AIDS. They forget to mention when and with exactly what test method this result was produced. Was this result reached in the 80' only by ELISA method that detects the antibodies to the HIV? or was confirmatory test performed with the more specific Westerd Blot method that is similar to ELISA but electroforesis is used to separate the components by molecular weight.
In the film they them selves admit that the test methods produce high quantity of false positives. Especially the old tests that would react to a number of antibodies that have nothing to do with HIV.

Someone is HIV positive when the ELISA and the confirmatory test such as Western Blot are positive. Nowadays the tests are much more reliable in detecting the specific HIV antibodies than ten or twenty years ago.


If there's any doctors or someone who knows better please correct me or add more information.


salam

edited to correct spelling

[MarkyX]

A person claiming to be Kevin Barrett nw posting there, http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085

Should I post my hate mail here too?

[Brainster]

A person claiming to be Kevin Barrett nw posting there, http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085

Ah, now we see what the O'Reilly death threat amounts to:

On his July 11th Fox program, Bill O'Reilly said that at the University of Wisconsin, where Kevin Barrett will be allowed to teach in fall, "there are no standards. . . . I'm stunned." He approvingly stated that at his own alma mater, Boston University, "The Chancellor there, John Silber, would have--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor."

About the typical level of discourse from Blowhard Bill, but not much of a threat.

[brumsen]

Ah, now we see what the O'Reilly death threat amounts to:

About the typical level of discourse from Blowhard Bill, but not much of a threat.
And again I am stunned at the level of discourse apparently acceptable in the US.

This is violent language, and is promoting such violence, even if undirectly. It's in the same category as Fetzer's statement to which I objected before leaving SfT, namely: "the perfidy is so great here that in the days of Aeschylus rioting crowds would have lifted the perpetrators from their beds and ripped them to shreds" or something to that effect (see the Chronicle article "professors of paranoia").

I suppose that's what living in a violent culture does to you. Ugh.

[Brainster]

And again I am stunned at the level of discourse apparently acceptable in the US.

This is violent language, and is promoting such violence, even if undirectly. It's in the same category as Fetzer's statement to which I objected before leaving SfT, namely: "the perfidy is so great here that in the days of Aeschylus rioting crowds would have lifted the perpetrators from their beds and ripped them to shreds" or something to that effect (see the Chronicle article "professors of paranoia").

I suppose that's what living in a violent culture does to you. Ugh.

Here's his quote (http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=j2dll9sp4mf4rtkp62dhg6yxsm3jt43c):

His voice was building. "Listen to me," he said. "The degree of perfidy involved here is so great, that in the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, frenzied mobs would have dragged these men out of their beds in the middle of the night and ripped them to shreds!"

As I commented at the time, hearing a professor pining for the days of mob rule was quite surprising.

[JamesB]

Should I post my hate mail here too?

Post Barrett's letter to John Kerry while you are at it.

[gumboot]

As I commented at the time, hearing a professor pining for the days of mob rule was quite surprising.


The same "mobs" put Socrates to death, so they weren't always spot on with their decision making either... :p

-Andrew

[JamesB]

Looks like the Loosers are going to be at it again.

Movie World Trade Center will be another great opportunity to flyer at the theaters, much as we did for United 93. Hand out flyers, DVDs, whatever, spread the truth! Mark your calendars - August 9th. A full month of flyering leading up to the anniversary is sure to raise awareness. Now go do it!
If they get a forum going we will do what we did to the message board of UNITED 93........until they shut it down.

Anybody see that message board? 9-1 Truth to Absurdity! Awesome
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8542

[Gravy]

And again I am stunned at the level of discourse apparently acceptable in the US.

This is violent language, and is promoting such violence, even if undirectly. It's in the same category as Fetzer's statement to which I objected before leaving SfT, namely: "the perfidy is so great here that in the days of Aeschylus rioting crowds would have lifted the perpetrators from their beds and ripped them to shreds" or something to that effect (see the Chronicle article "professors of paranoia").

I suppose that's what living in a violent culture does to you. Ugh.
"Acceptable" is a difficult word here. O'Reilly's speech is legal, therefore I have no choice but to "accept" it. He did not make a threat or incite violence against Barrett. People are free to complain to O'Reilly or his bosses or the press. Do you think his speech should be banned?

[Gravy]

Looks like the Loosers are going to be at it again.

Movie World Trade Center will be another great opportunity to flyer at the theaters, much as we did for United 93. Hand out flyers, DVDs, whatever, spread the truth! Mark your calendars - August 9th. A full month of flyering leading up to the anniversary is sure to raise awareness. Now go do it!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8542
Yes, and the national 911truth.org is trying to get "civil disobedience" going at theaters, i.e. getting arrested. I'm going to bring a lawn chair and watch.

[60hzxtl]

Yes, and the national 911truth.org is trying to get "civil disobedience" going at theaters, i.e. getting arrested. I'm going to bring a lawn chair and watch.


True civil disobedience requires that you take your punishment and not whine about it.

Bet they can't manage that.

They might go to ground zero and catch cancer:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8397

or Gypsy who has 'odd' ideas about what free speech entails, or seems to think that google video is required by law to post her videos, and videos that violate other's copyrights:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8447

[brumsen]

"Acceptable" is a difficult word here. O'Reilly's speech is legal, therefore I have no choice but to "accept" it. He did not make a threat or incite violence against Barrett. People are free to complain to O'Reilly or his bosses or the press. Do you think his speech should be banned?
Well, surely one may be forced to accept things while one denounces them at the same time as unacceptable? Unacceptable and illegal are obviously not the same thing.

I was surprised to see a comment here saying in effect "oh well it's hardly a death threat so it's OK"; I think it is not OK. Barrett is right to protest against it. And so should others.

[Gravy]

Well, surely one may be forced to accept things while one denounces them at the same time as unacceptable? Unacceptable and illegal are obviously not the same thing.

I was surprised to see a comment here saying in effect "oh well it's hardly a death threat so it's OK"; I think it is not OK. Barrett is right to protest against it. And so should others.
You're mischaracterizing a comment here. Pointing out that it's not a threat, and that it comes from a "blowhard," is not condoning the statement.

[jhunter1163]

I see that what I now refer to as the LC Investigators And Researchers (LIAR) will be at the opening of the WTC movie. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to ask a LIAR a few questions. I'm not sanguine about changing any minds since most LIARs appear to be very firmly wedded to their version of reality but I still think it'd be worth the trip to ground zero (since it's only about an hour's drive anyway). Plus there'd be movie popcorn and the chance to watch a LIAR get taken to jail. A good value for your entertainment dollar.

Also, as far as who benefits from 9/11, I met my wife in a chat room while searching desperately for news that day.. so I guess you can say that I did benefit.. although I did also lose three close friends that day. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....

[JamesB]

True civil disobedience requires that you take your punishment and not whine about it.

Bet they can't manage that.

They might go to ground zero and catch cancer:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8397

or Gypsy who has 'odd' ideas about what free speech entails, or seems to think that google video is required by law to post her videos, and videos that violate other's copyrights:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8447

I saw that, she wants to sue them for violating her rights to free speech. Since when was someone else required by law to provide a commercial service to you for free? I am going to sue the NY Times since they won't run my essays on the front page whenever I ask.

[Gravy]

From Screw Loose Change, here's the letter from Barrett to John Kerry that was referred to above. Brumsen, care to comment on the "level of discourse" displayed here?

Dear John,

You, my “war-hero” friend, are a feckless yellow-bellied WIMP. 19 months ago, when you could have walked away...you did! You let the Bush crime family and their 9/11 perp friends the neocons steal the election you won in a landslide 53%-47%. If you had the slightest shred of guts or integrity, you could have had us all out in the streets taking back the country. Instead, you tucked your tail between your legs and fled like the coward you are. Unless, of course, the two candidates from Skull and Bones had the whole thing fixed in advance. Either way, it appears that masturbating in a coffin in front of your sick Yalie frat buddies doesn't do much for your intestinal fortitude. As far as I'm concerned, you're history. But hey, prove me wrong. Get onboard with 9/11 truth NOW or condemn yourself to historical irrelevance.

Sincerely,

Kevin Barrett

http://www.mujca.com/masterplan.htm

p.s. I'd like to see his figures that show Kerry winning the election with 53% of the vote.

[MarkyX]

I tried to upload the history channel documents for Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamburg Cell but got denied for copyright reasons.

Can I sue too :(

[60hzxtl]

I tried to upload the history channel documents for Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamburg Cell but got denied for copyright reasons.

Can I sue too :(


Context is everything -

You can sue.

But you probably will not win.

Similarly, I can saw a woman in two - putting her back together? ah, now that's a trick!

[Longfellow]

How do.

First post. I just wanted to thank the fine folks here at this forum for all they do in trying to counter the self-proclaimed 'truth movement'.

I am a retired (medically) factory worker who is also an amateur historian and freelance writer. I did manage to read every post in this thread (every post of all three parts, I should say) and I am, without a doubt, flaggergasted at the dichotomy displayed in many, if not most, of the arguments put for by the 'truth' movement. History revisionists might be a more accurate portrayal.

This place is like a fresh breeze on a muggy summer day and I hope to be able to contribute somewhat (though, not nearly as prolifically as some) in the future.

[Regnad Kcin]

Welcome, longfellow. A well-spoken/written introductory post.

[Brainster]

How do.

First post. I just wanted to thank the fine folks here at this forum for all they do in trying to counter the self-proclaimed 'truth movement'.

I am a retired (medically) factory worker who is also an amateur historian and freelance writer. I did manage to read every post in this thread (every post of all three parts, I should say) and I am, without a doubt, flaggergasted at the dichotomy displayed in many, if not most, of the arguments put for by the 'truth' movement. History revisionists might be a more accurate portrayal.

Welcome, Longfellow! You have already learned the most important lesson about the CT crowd. Very few of them are legitimately interested in the "Truth".

[JamesB]

I think Gravy is the most qualified to respond to this one:

I dont think you really grasped my point here.

I didnt ask you what Dylans objectives are; if I wanted such I would have emailed Dylan.

I said I think a constructive way forward would be to email him your list of errors.

Have you done so?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085

[brumsen]

From Screw Loose Change, here's the letter from Barrett to John Kerry that was referred to above. Brumsen, care to comment on the "level of discourse" displayed here?
I'd say: extremely rude, but not violent or threatening.

[Dave1001]

I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists.

The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.

Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists.

The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.

Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.


What would you say is (and please be specific) LC's, or any CT's, strongest point to gov't involvement in the attacks?

[jhunter1163]

I found it absurd and bordering on the offensive, but maybe that's just me. Avery and his ilk are in the business of rabble-rousing, and the better they are at it and the more attention they draw to their "cause" the more DVDs they sell.

Their evidence is flimsy at best and concocted at worst. And, when confronted with massive piles of facts and eyewitness statements that contradict their claims, they fall back on the "we're just asking questions" defense.

It's certainly fair enough to ask questions about possible goverment involvement in 9-11, and if the CTs could come up with a theory THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE I'd be willing to take a look at it. But, sadly, you won't find such a theory in Loose Change.

[bob_kark]

I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists.

The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.

Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.
I think the problem here is that plausibility is a far cry from proof, but that seems to be all it takes to throw around serious allegations and to repeatedly defile the names of the innocent people who did die as a result of the actions on 9/11. To date, there has been 0 evidence to support any of the claims made in Loose Change. Therefore there has been no reason to take any of the claims seriously.

[Dave1001]

What would you say is (and please be specific) LC's, or any CT's, strongest point to gov't involvement in the attacks?

The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, and as part of that their claim that fires have burned significantly longer, and over a significantly greater number of floors, in the recent past.

The second strongest point I thought is that it would be extremely difficult to fly a large passenger jet plane into the Pentagon, that it would make a significantly larger hole than it did, and that we would have significantly more publicly available video and photographic evidence of the large passenger plane flying into the Pentagon.

Have these 2 points already been thoroughly debunked on this thread or elsewhere?

Although this isn't part of their argument, I also have an open mind about the weakest possible version of a 911 conspiracy narrative: the "Pearl Harbor" angle, that the leadership elements of the Administration may have known specifically that Al Quaida was planning on striking in the United States and chose to allow it to happen, so as to move things in a straussian and PNAC direction for the political and economic benefit of their primary constituencies (a terrorist attack making the population more conservative, helping Republicans, and boosting energy sector and defense sector shares of the economy).

[bob_kark]

Have these 2 points already been thoroughly debunked on this thread or elsewhere?

Yes, maybe not on part 3 but on the prior threads and several other threads as well. You really have to be ignoring the evidence, or simply ignorant of it, to believe otherwise IMO.

Although this isn't part of their argument, I also have an open mind about the weakest possible version of a 911 conspiracy narrative: the "Pearl Harbor" angle, that the leadership elements of the Administration may have known specifically that Al Quaida was planning on striking in the United States and chose to allow it to happen, so as to move things in a straussian and PNAC direction for the political and economic benefit of their primary constituencies (a terrorist attack making the population more conservative, helping Republicans, and boosting energy sector and defense sector shares of the economy).

Is it possible? Sure! Again, plausibility does not constitute proof. Therefore it is unlikely to change anyone's mind on the forum.

[Gravy]

I think Gravy is the most qualified to respond to this one:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085
I responded, thanks.

[Class]

The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, and as part of that their claim that fires have burned significantly longer, and over a significantly greater number of floors, in the recent past.
Those buildings did not have two passenger jets slam into them at 490 and 530 MPH, weakening their structural supports and blowing the fireproofing off of the columns and beams.

The second strongest point I thought is that it would be extremely difficult to fly a large passenger jet plane into the Pentagon, that it would make a significantly larger hole than it did, and that we would have significantly more publicly available video and photographic evidence of the large passenger plane flying into the Pentagon.
The hole in the outer ring was 75' wide, much bigger than the 16' figure presented in Loose Change. The Pentagon did release the footage from the security gate camera which showed the crash of the plane. You cannot clearly see the jet because of it's high speed and the low resolution of the camera, but it shows the crash. Why there aren't other tapes of it: The Pentagon is mainly guarded by live security, not by cameras. There were no other cameras at the Pentagon that could have captured the crash.

[Stellafane]

...Have these 2 points already been thoroughly debunked on this thread or elsewhere?

Yes.

(I'm hard pressed to recall being asked an easier question.)

[Brainster]

Well, surely one may be forced to accept things while one denounces them at the same time as unacceptable? Unacceptable and illegal are obviously not the same thing.

I was surprised to see a comment here saying in effect "oh well it's hardly a death threat so it's OK"; I think it is not OK. Barrett is right to protest against it. And so should others.

To give you some context for my initial comment, Barrett and others have been claiming that O'Reilly had threatened his life. This struck me as extremely unlikely, and so it proved. That was why I felt the comment was mild--compared to what had been claimed. Like I said, typical of loudmouth O'Reilly. But it's an abstraction--more like saying "in my grandpappy's time Barrett would have been taken out and horsewhipped", than "somebody oughta kill that idiot Barrett". Stupid and not moving the discussion forward, certainly. But it's pretty weak beer as a threat.

[Stellafane]

To give you some context for my initial comment, Barrett and others have been claiming that O'Reilly had threatened his life. This struck me as extremely unlikely, and so it proved. That was why I felt the comment was mild--compared to what had been claimed. Like I said, typical of loudmouth O'Reilly. But it's an abstraction--more like saying "in my grandpappy's time Barrett would have been taken out and horsewhipped", than "somebody oughta kill that idiot Barrett". Stupid and not moving the discussion forward, certainly. But it's pretty weak beer as a threat.

I believe MarkyX has received death threats, and at least one person on the LC board threatened to beat up Gravy. I don't recall anyone here making similar threats against any CT'er.

As for O'Reilly, the man is a dunce, so I'm not going to defend him. Of course, since Barrett presumes to accuse Kerry (a man who repeatedly withstood enemy fire in the service of his country) of having no guts, I'm surprised he'd be so bothered by anything O'Reilly has to say.

[Gravy]

The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire,

Hi, Dave.

I just made a reply to similar points in another forum:

How come my outdoor grill doesn't explode upward into white hot ash and then melt away into a puddle when I'm cooking burgers on it? I thought fire melts steel?
My reply:
An incredibly ignorant statement. You're saying that your grill has been through conditions comparable to those in the WTC and the debris piles?

“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected." –Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator

Why has no building before or since ever fallen from fire? Gee, I wonder........
I think you're talking about steel-framed skyscrapers. But it is again, a disingenuos statement.

LIke so many CTs, you choose to focus on one factor and ignore the others. Why?

Do you know the three interdependent reasons that NIST gives for the tower collapses? Do you know that NIST concluded that the towers probably would not have fallen from the fires alone? It seems that you're just repeating CT nonsense, rather than reading the results of the investigations. At least read the executive summaries on the towers. At least read the interim report on building 7.

Now, are you claiming that structural steel can't collapse in a fire? If that were true, why do building codes mandate that fire-resistant materials be applied to all structural steel? It's the law. An entire industry is devoted to protecting structural steel from fire.

How about the Windsor building in Madrid? CTs use it all the time as an example of a building that had a long, severe fire on its top 10 floors and didn't collapse. They ignore the fact that the steel perimeter columns DID collapse due to fire alone on those floors, resulting in the concrete core standing there on its own. (Not to mention the fact that the building wasn't hit by an airliner at high speed, resulting in massive structural damage and fireproofing blasted off its steel.)

If steel can't fail in fires, can you explain why the designers of the new WTC 7 took the very expensive measure of covering all its structural steel in fireproofing that's FIVE TIMES thicker than required by law? And why that building was not built, like its predecessor, with a steel core, but with a thick concrete core?

[Brainster]

I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists.

The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.

Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.

Dave, I think you watched Loose Change Version 1; they removed the pod/missile theory from Version 2.

As for it being absurd to knock down the silliest parts of LC, let me mention that back in May when anybody went over to the Loose Change Forum, the response to questions about mistakes and problems in LC was that it was perfect except for the B-52/B-25 mistake. Nowadays you go over there to praise the film and even the mods will admit, "Well, Loose Change 2 is far from perfect, but LCFC is going to be airtight".

And you can't take out much of the conspiracy theory that Dylan proposes and have anything left. Suppose the cellphone/airfone calls really happened? Well, then virtually the entire movie is wrong. If there were hijackers as the callers claimed, doesn't it become almost a certainty that they're the ones who flew the planes into the WTC? And if they're responsible for the WTC, aren't they likely also to blame for the Pentagon? And then it becomes preposterous to presume that United 93 didn't crash the way the official story tells it.

Oh, sure, you can construct another CT to cover the airfones; say LIHOP with controlled demolition. Or maybe it was an elite force of Mossad agents, disguised as Arabs. But at that point, you've completely thrown Loose Change out the window (which is a good idea anyway). Dylan's theory is a stool; you can't remove one leg and remain seated.

[Gravy]

I believe MarkyX has received death threats, and at least one person on the LC board threatened to beat up Gravy.
Somebody threatened to beat me up? They'd better have a baseball bat. As my last girlfriend said, "I've seen draft horses smaller than you." (And that was before I undressed!) :blush:

[Stellafane]

Somebody threatened to beat me up? They'd better have a baseball bat. As my last girlfriend said, "I've seen draft horses smaller than you." (And that was before I undressed!) :blush:

Ignoring the (ahem) horse comparison...I'm pretty certain I saw someone in the LC forum who said they'd be waiting for you at Ground Zero, and you better wear a mouth guard (or words to that effect). However, I thought you were already aware of this. If not, I could have be mistaken about the threat being directed towards you. (I don't have the link to the precise post, and trust me, I have no desire to search through that pile of sewage looking for it.) Since I absolutely do not want to be in position of discussing theats I can't prove 100%, I withdraw my comment -- and please accept my apology for trafficking in unverified information.

ETA (in view of the vast differences in our respective statures): Sir!

[Gravy]

Ignoring the (ahem) horse comparison...I'm pretty certain I saw someone in the LC forum who said they'd be waiting for you at Ground Zero, and you better wear a mouth guard (or words to that effect). However, I thought you were already aware of this. If not, I could have be mistaken about the threat being directed towards you. (I don't have the link to the precise post, and trust me, I have no desire to search through that pile of sewage looking for it.) Since I absolutely do not want to be in position of discussing theats I can't prove 100%, I withdraw my comment -- and please accept my apology for trafficking in unverified information.

ETA (in view of the vast differences in our respective statures): Sir!
I remember now. Just an idiot doing what idiots do. I'll be very easy to find at Ground Zero on 9/11. Just look for the big guy who's at Avery's side and who's not frothing at the mouth or wearing an "Investigate 9/11" t-shirt.

ETA: I will be wearing a spittle-guard.

[60hzxtl]

Why not wear "Investigate Dylan Avery" shirts?

[Gravy]

Why not wear "Investigate Dylan Avery" shirts?
I'll leave that to Eric Hufschmid. (http://www.erichufschmid.net/InvestigateTheTruthSeekers.htm)

[Regnad Kcin]

I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists...Well, calling those its "strongest" arguments doesn't say much, does it? They are rather easily debunked.

Welcome to the forum.

[jhunter1163]

Oh, sure, you can construct another CT to cover the airfones; say LIHOP with controlled demolition. Or maybe it was an elite force of Mossad agents, disguised as Arabs. But at that point, you've completely thrown Loose Change out the window (which is a good idea anyway). Dylan's theory is a stool; you can't remove one leg and remain seated.[/QUOTE]

My stool floats... Dylan's sinks.

[MarkyX]

I am quitting that Nineleven.co.uk board.

All I ask is evidence that bombs were in the buildings, and instead they start asking me about gag orders or that Bush was part of Skull and Bones. I show the firefighter quotes, and they still go off-topic.

I can't debate with morons like that. It's not good for my health and I rather be playing Quake 4. If this is what the majority of people think in Europe, it's no wonder that it's a mess right now. They have Muslims praising Osama Bin Laden and wishing for more attacks in their cities, while they sit on a message board debating about 9/11 being a coverup with no indisputable evidence. I really like their priorities :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, MarkyX.

Battlefield 2 is a much better game than Quake 4. Quake hasn't ruled the roost since Q2, iwch was a great game to be sure. But subsequent versions just haven't had the magic that Q2 did.

[MarkyX]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, MarkyX.

Battlefield 2 is a much better game than Quake 4. Quake hasn't ruled the roost since Q2, iwch was a great game to be sure. But subsequent versions just haven't had the magic that Q2 did.

I got bored of BF2 because it was too easy.

http://bf2tracker.com/bf2_userprofile.php?bf2id=44085570

[CptColumbo]

Here's a place where you can link to videos of the interviews with the three NYPD officers:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

I have dial-up, so I don't know if the part I was talking about is in there.

I was hoping for a transcript.

[Brainster]

Why not wear "Investigate Dylan Avery" shirts?

This is actually an issue that I've been pondering lately. Our side lacks a bumper sticker-type slogan, and we're horribly positioned by calling them the "Truthers". Hmmmm, who oppose the "Truthers" but the "Liars"? We can't even call ourselves 9-11 Skeptics because that implies skepticism of the official story.

We have to reclaim the high ground on this (and no, I'm not kidding). How about pushing the terminology? They're not "Truthers" they're "9-11 Deniers". When they claim the hijackers are still alive (and have you noticed the number supposedly alive has been creepiing up), they're "Terrorist Apologists".

[60hzxtl]

This is actually an issue that I've been pondering lately. Our side lacks a bumper sticker-type slogan, and we're horribly positioned

snip

When they claim the hijackers are still alive (and have you noticed the number supposedly alive has been creepiing up), they're "Terrorist Apologists".


How about, The Terrorist's Alibi ?

Or Osama's Apologists

[kookbreaker]

The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, and as part of that their claim that fires have burned significantly longer, and over a significantly greater number of floors, in the recent past.

If you look at the history of skyscrapers, you may find that there are perhaps 6 or 7 which had raging, threatening fires. Sure, any (and perhaps most) skyscrapers can have a small blaze, or even a decent burn that takes a couple of hours to put out. But fires that go on for 6+ hours? You geta very low number with that.

The ones I am aware of are:

Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia.
WTC1
WTC2
WTC7
Hilton hotel in Madrid.

Now the Madrid Hilton was concrete with a partial steel structure. Completely different design from any of the WTC buildings that collapsed. The steel portion of that building in fact did collapse. The concrete portion remained standing. This is a detail often overlooked by conspiracy theorists, since they need to compare apples to oranges to score any points.

The Meridian Plaza was another nasty blaze that claimed the lives of three firemen. The fires in that building were constantly fought (unlike WTC7), and even when internal firefighting efforts were abandoned (due to the fear of pancake collapse) the external hose was constantly pumping water. Add to this the concrete over steel structure gave the Meridian several advantages over WTC7. But even with those advantages the building came darn close to collapse. Photos from the inside show massively sagging columns on the verge of failing. Structural engineers who went in to examine the damage really didn't want to stay in there very long. The building needed to be braced before it could be brought down, piece by piece. In another example of CT ineptitude, several CT sites mentioning these fires say the Meridian is 'still standing'.

[Brainster]

How about, The Terrorist's Alibi ?

Or Osama's Apologists

Dingdingding! Osama's Apologists it is. Also applies to denial of the confession video. Now, can anybody come up with something sharp and pithy for the bumper sticker?

9-11 Conspiracists Do It With Videos
Loose Change = Loose Brains

Or, you know:

Screw Loose Change

It is rather pithy.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I got bored of BF2 because it was too easy.

http://bf2tracker.com/bf2_userprofile.php?bf2id=44085570


Damn... I suck. :(

http://bf2s.com/player/44597943/

[60hzxtl]

Dingdingding! Osama's Apologists it is. Also applies to denial of the confession video. Now, can anybody come up with something sharp and pithy for the bumper sticker?

9-11 Conspiracists Do It With Videos
Loose Change = Loose Brains

Or, you know:

Screw Loose Change

It is rather pithy.

The Film So Good We Have to Give it Away!

[Pardalis]

The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, and as part of that their claim that fires have burned significantly longer, and over a significantly greater number of floors, in the recent past.

I think the NIST report is extremely convincing.

The second strongest point I thought is that it would be extremely difficult to fly a large passenger jet plane into the Pentagon, that it would make a significantly larger hole than it did, and that we would have significantly more publicly available video and photographic evidence of the large passenger plane flying into the Pentagon.

But a plane did hit the Pentagon, multiple eye witnesses say so, and the crew and passengers' DNA was recovered in the Pentagon. You can't get better evidence than that.

Although this isn't part of their argument, I also have an open mind about the weakest possible version of a 911 conspiracy narrative: the "Pearl Harbor" angle

I think it's the most probable theory of the CTs, but it remains highly speculative.

[gumboot]

If you look at the history of skyscrapers, you may find that there are perhaps 6 or 7 which had raging, threatening fires. Sure, any (and perhaps most) skyscrapers can have a small blaze, or even a decent burn that takes a couple of hours to put out. But fires that go on for 6+ hours? You geta very low number with that.


There's something misleading about the entire "fire" thing.

The reality is multi-storey buildings of various designs DO suffer total collapse. The causes vary.

I just thought I should mention one (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml):


On May 10, ten years ago, the worst factory fire in history took place at the Kader Industrial toy factory on the outskirts of the Thai capital of Bangkok. Officially 188 workers, most of them young women from impoverished rural families, died in the blaze. Another 469 were injured; many seriously and permanently, after they were forced to leap from second, third and fourth floors of the buildings to avoid being burnt to death.

Hundreds of workers were packed into each of the three buildings that collapsed. There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms, no sprinkler systems and the elevated walkways between the buildings were either locked or used as storage areas. The buildings themselves were death traps, constructed from un-insulated steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes. Those who attempted to flee through the narrow ground floor exits found them jammed shut.

my bolding.

What we have here is three multi-storey STEEL buildings that suffered TOTAL COLLAPSE in LESS THAN 15 MINUTES purely due to fire.

Then there's this: (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DF113AF932A25754C0A9639582 60)

Rescuers found four more survivors under the rubble of a shopping mall today, nearly 11 1/2 days after the building caved in on more than 1,000 people, officials at the Home Ministry said...

...United States military experts searched with sound detectors in what had been a five-story wing of the shopping complex...


Sometimes you don't need fire...

There are others...

1998 Rome, Italy - 5 storey block of flats collapses
1999 Foggia, Italy, 5 storey block of flats collapses

Buildings don't suffer total collapse very often, so one cannot expect any given particular type of construction to have suffered very many total collapses due to one particular cause (especially when that cause itself is a very rare event).

What we can tell, from looking through a history of building disasters, is buildings made of concrete, steel, brick, wood, or a combination, DO suffer universal pancake collapses. Sometimes due to fire, sometimes due to structural failings, sometimes due to earthquakes, sometimes due to terrorist bombs, sometimes due to air crashes, sometimes due to weather, sometimes due to a combination...

There's plenty to choose from.

Here's (http://www.ukusar.com/usar_incidents.htm) a nice online list of incidents... Note how many mention "collapse". Note the range of causes.

This is a very small list - I downloaded an excel document categorising 692 major incidents between 1902 and 2005.

-Andrew

[brodski]

I am quitting that Nineleven.co.uk board.

All I ask is evidence that bombs were in the buildings, and instead they start asking me about gag orders or that Bush was part of Skull and Bones. I show the firefighter quotes, and they still go off-topic.

I can't debate with morons like that. It's not good for my health and I rather be playing Quake 4. If this is what the majority of people think in Europe, it's no wonder that it's a mess right now. They have Muslims praising Osama Bin Laden and wishing for more attacks in their cities, while they sit on a message board debating about 9/11 being a coverup with no indisputable evidence. I really like their priorities :rolleyes: don't assume that the view on the nineeleven.co.uk are any more representative of the views held by Europeans than the loose change boards are representative of the views held by Americans.

[PopeTom]

Why not wear "Investigate Dylan Avery" shirts?

I think Gravy would be better served wearing a "I'm with stupid" shirt if he plans on sticking close to Mr. Avery.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm guessing my pre-coffee pissyness will have earned me suspensions on a couple of forums today:
nineeleven.co.uk

Since it seems clear that rather than have an evidence based discussion you would rather limit/silence dissent I'll leave you to your little Osama apologist/9-11 denier forum. If, however, you want to engage in actual discussion over the evidence feel free to come to the JREF forums http://forums.randi.org - we don't relegate dissenting views to sub-forums.

LC
QUOTE (Ijon Tichy @ Jul 23 2006, 03:20 AM)

QUOTE (eeyore1954 @ Jul 23 2006, 02:01 AM)
I believe I believe these thing not because i am a government apologist or a Bush lackey or a naive sheeple.

Fixed.

Well, if you get to imply eeyore1954 is a government apologist since eeyore1954 doesn't agree with your take, then that means I must get to call you an Osama apologist.

[MarkyX]

I think Gravy would be better served wearing a "I'm with stupid" shirt if he plans on sticking close to Mr. Avery.

I was just about to suggest that.

[Belz...]

How do.

You do. ;)

[Belz...]

There's something misleading about the entire "fire" thing.

[...]

This is a very small list - I downloaded an excel document categorising 692 major incidents between 1902 and 2005.

-Andrew

Very interesting post, Gum.

As usual.

[delphi_ote]

This is a very small list - I downloaded an excel document categorising 692 major incidents between 1902 and 2005
Do you remember where you got it or is there some way I could get access to it? I'm very curious.

[Johnny Pixels]

Shouldn't the British campaign be for 11/9 truth? Or was there somekind of disaster in November that I missed?

I'm thinking about joining the forum, because I'm still suspended/banned/whatevered from the LC forum.

Just..have..to..remain..calm..and...objective...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Shouldn't the British campaign be for 11/9 truth? Or was there somekind of disaster in November that I missed?

I'm thinking about joining the forum, because I'm still suspended/banned/whatevered from the LC forum.

Just..have..to..remain..calm..and...objective...

You really don't want to do that.

[gumboot]

First post.


I'm a bit behind the times (technically I'm well ahead...time zones and all...) but welcome!



I did manage to read every post in this thread (every post of all three parts, I should say)

:jaw-dropp

*dies*

Well done!

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Do you remember where you got it or is there some way I could get access to it? I'm very curious.

Hoorah for Firefox "properties" function... :)

here it is (http://www.epcollege.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.epcollege.gov.uk/major_incidents0905.xls)

Note... this link takes you directly to the Excel file itself, so most likely your computer will try to download automatically... :)

I'd also like to point out the number of "other structure" collapses - most of them appear to be sports stadiums of some kind or another - there's a lot of them collapsing.

It just seems to be the CT claims about "no all-steel high-rise has ever suffered complete collapse before from fire" is too narrow an event to expect to have ever happened before...

Not to mention the flaws in the logic "this hasn't happened before, so it couldn't possibly have happened".

Take a story my friend loves to tell me:


A turkey is born on a farm in the United States. Every morning, the farmer comes in and gives the turkey some feed, and leaves again. This progresses throughout the turkey's life. Every morning, in comes the farmer with some feed. Over and over. Every day.

Then one day the farmer comes in as usual, but this time he has an axe. The turkey has no idea what's going on. WACK. Everything goes dark. No more turkey.

From the turkey's point of view, there was no possible way, what-so-ever that something like that could have happened. Nothing in the turkey's experience had indicated such an event was even possible.

Yet from the farmer's point of view, it was Thanksgiving. And he does that EVERY year.

Hence we can see the inherrent flaw in assuming something didn't happen just because it hadn't ever happened BEFORE this particular event.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Shouldn't the British campaign be for 11/9 truth? Or was there somekind of disaster in November that I missed?


Here it's the 12/9 Terrorist Attacks... :p Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

-Andrew

[Regnad Kcin]

Love the turkey/farmer illustration, gumboot!

[delphi_ote]

Hoorah for Firefox "properties" function... :)

here it is (http://www.epcollege.gov.uk/upload/assets/www.epcollege.gov.uk/major_incidents0905.xls)

Note... this link takes you directly to the Excel file itself, so most likely your computer will try to download automatically... :)
Wow. That is great, gumboot. Thanks a lot!

If anyone is curious as to the source of the material, it is this group:
The Emergency Planning College is situated at the heart of Government, within the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) of the Cabinet Office.

The College Organisation Chart sets out the management and operational structure.

Since 1989, it has been the Government's centre for running short seminars, workshops and courses on an inter–agency basis in the field of crisis management and emergency planning. Its diverse and dynamic programme attracts in excess of six thousand delegates per year from a wide range of backgrounds providing a national forum for discussion and the sharing of good practice.
The U.K. government! I knew it! I'm sure this is just a list of buildings they were blowing up as test cases for 9/11.

[gumboot]

I didn't sleep last night... for some reason I kept playing 9/11 stuff over in my head again and again...

I'm taking this way too seriously... :p

I have a question...

Has anyone ever considered making our own video?

I don't mean a direct rebuttal to LC, I mean our own unique video documentary, in the same style as LC, In Plane Site, et al, but tracking actual events.

There are several reasons for this:

1) Visuals work better than text
2) We can get people to watch it and avoid pointless dialogue

and most important

3) Seems a lot of people don't accept the "official story" because it involves a lot of stuff they don't understand. They lack the skills to understand the specialist reports, and lack the time/patience/commitment to learn to understand them. As such they see much of the official story as "unexplained". Their own "common sense" fills in these blanks - this is the exact behaviour LC is taking advantage of.

I'm talking about a documentary that goes through step by step explaining what is happening, how, etc.

For example, if we take the WTC collapses...

We document at each step, using the same techniques as LC (video footage, websites, news articles, simple 2D/3D animations, Voice-Over) what happened. Example:

1) Plane crashes and related immediate events (severed supports, spread of fire, removal of fire-proofing...)
2) Various evidences of gradual failure and simple explanations/animations of what was causes them - floor trusses sagging, pulling in the building, etc
3) More imminent collapse info (such as report of floor collapses in South Tower via 911 calls)
4) Step-by-step progression of what a pancake collapse involves (explaining "squibs", the dust cloud, simple and effective comparisons "the collapse released as much energy as 10,000 bunker buster bombs" (or whatever...)
5) Demonstration of variations in estimated time of collapse
6) Demonstration of broad field of collapse damage on surrounding buildings

And so forth.

It's something I'd be really interested in being involved in, if such a project is viable. Certainly I personally have available to me the expertise and skills and personnel and equipment to assemble together such a project and mirror the stylistic features of info-tainment documentaries.

I can see a number of issues with such a proposal
1) The sheer scale of the project
2) Copyright issues (and I'm not 100% up to play on what they are in the USA in particular with respect to news footage, news websites, animation simulations of the attacks, official reports, etc)
3) Sourcing material - we would need huge volumes of visual material
4) Generating original material - basic animations etc

Lastly, for myself in particular, obviously I'm on the other side of the world and far removed from most of the source of such material as well as the actual sites of the events.

Anyway, I don't know if the subject has ever been raised, but thought it might be worth it - it also would reduce the image of us being simply against LC specifically (though this in itself is a worthy task!). Things like a viewer's guide/companion website with additional sources/links/etc would also provide the documentary with accountability and credibility that would set it aside from things like LC.

Incidentally, were the copyright thing considered the major hurdle in realising such a project, I would suggest that accquiring copyright on a strictly non-profit basis was at least considered for various sources.

I've had to get a lot of contracts signed for zero-budget film work like personal releases, location releases, property releases, copyright releases, music releases... sometimes the stuff you think will be easy turns out to be impossible, but in the same way a lot of stuff you initially write-off as impossible turns out to be very simple.

-Andrew

[Johnny Pixels]

Here it's the 12/9 Terrorist Attacks... :p Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

-Andrew

I guess we should be thankful it wasn't the 24th July, because hearing about 24/7 terrorist attacks would put the homeland security dangerometer off the scale

[gumboot]

I guess we should be thankful it wasn't the 24th July, because hearing about 24/7 terrorist attacks would put the homeland security dangerometer off the scale

Heh... that would be funny...

Incidentally... much has been made of the date...

I understand it was the UN International Peace Day

Any explanations put forward as to why the terrorists chose 9/11? Was it just a random day? (Attacks had to happen on "a" day...)

-Andrew

[Blue Mountain]

Any explanations put forward as to why the terrorists chose 9/11? Was it just a random day? (Attacks had to happen on "a" day...)
The most likely explanation I've heard was it was a beautiful clear day; no clouds at all over the eastern part of the States. Just what you need if you want to visually acquire targets on the ground.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'd heard that it was because not very many people fly on Tuesdays.

[MarkyX]

I'd heard that it was because not very many people fly on Tuesdays.

From the history channel on the hamburg cell, something about a riddle involving a lollipop, a slash, and two sticks.

[Mutton-Head]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you work for any US intelligence agency, either part-time or full-time?

[Pardalis]

I work for the Montréal branch of the CIA. :D

[Mutton-Head]

I work for the Montréal branch of the CIA. :D

For real?

[Pardalis]

Yeah, the CIA is very big here in Québec. :cool:

[Mutton-Head]

Yeah, the CIA is very big here in Québec. :cool:

So, what does your job entail?

[Pardalis]

I surveil conspiracists who post on the web.

[MarkyX]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you work for any US intelligence agency, either part-time or full-time?

Yes, I am the Bush twins man-whore #230

[Pardalis]

Yes, I am the Bush twins man-whore #230

Part-time or full-time? lol

[Mutton-Head]

Yes, I am the Bush twins man-whore #230


Hahahahahaha! I'm trying to figure out if the fact that there are 229 ahead of you is a good thing, or an insult....

??????

[Mutton-Head]

OK, does anybody else work for any US intelligence agency, either part-time or full-time?

[Mutton-Head]

Part-time or full-time? lol

Could you imagine the amount of man-whore-hours that 230 man-whores would produce?

Pile em up baby.

[mrfreeze]

Does being just a general government shill count? It doesn't pay that well, but the perks are nice.

[hellaeon]

Mutton: I am a Disinformation Agent specifically assigned to 9/11

[MarkyX]

Hahahahahaha! I'm trying to figure out if the fact that there are 229 ahead of you is a good thing, or an insult....

??????

It was late entry. Damn green cards.

[mrfreeze]

Mutton: I am a Disinformation Agent specifically assigned to 9/11
rule8it, why didn't you let me know that before? That's my job! You know there is only supposed to be one official disinfo agent to a board!

[Pardalis]

Mutton, is it because you have painted yourself into a corner in both threads that you've started that now the only thing you found to do is to accuse people here of working for the US gorvernment?

That's real pathetic.

[Gravy]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you work for any US intelligence agency, either part-time or full-time?
Yes. I'm watching you right now. I think you put that strap through the wrong buckle.

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton, is it because you have painted yourself into a corner in both threads that you've started that now the only thing you found to do is to accuse people here of working for the US gorvernment?

That's real pathetic.

I'm not accusing, I'm asking. Working for an intelligence agency is not illegal, or wrong. I'm curious about the tenacity for defending the official 911 report. That's not illegal or conspiricy.

[Bronze Dog]

My shilliness cannae change the laws of physics. (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-3-youre-just-insert-evil.html)

[Mutton-Head]

Yes. I'm watching you right now. I think you put that strap through the wrong buckle.

Hey Gravy, how come the absence from the Mineta thread? Can't handle sticking to real debating points?

Oh, and I'm not wearing any buckles

Ha!

[MarkyX]

I'm not accusing, I'm asking. Working for an intelligence agency is not illegal, or wrong. I'm curious about the tenacity for defending the official 911 report. That's not illegal or conspiricy.

Show us indisputable proof that 9/11 was an inside job, then we'll talk.

[hellaeon]

rule8it, why didn't you let me know that before? That's my job! You know there is only supposed to be one official disinfo agent to a board!

Thats what they want you to believe.

[Gravy]

I'm not accusing, I'm asking. Working for an intelligence agency is not illegal, or wrong. I'm curious about the tenacity for defending the official 911 report. That's not illegal or conspiricy.
It's surprising that people support evidence, facts, and critical thinking?
Have you forgotten that this is a forum devoted to those things?

[Gravy]

Hey Gravy, how come the absence from the Mineta thread? Can't handle sticking to real debating points?

Oh, and I'm not wearing any buckles

Ha!
No, I've been busy on another forum with people who need even more help than you do! :)