Loose Change - Part III [Archive] - Page 3

tacodaemon

24th June 2006, 04:22 PM

Hey there, all. I'm another newbie drawn here by the Loose Change discussion, though I've been a Randi fan and CSICOP-style skeptic type for years now, and am interested in any sorts of skeptical goings-on here in the DC area. Anyhow:

They like pictures over there.

I've noticed that too, and it occurred to me that the tons of computer-generated Pretty Pictures in the NIST report might be fun to toss at them. For example, in report NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, pp. 399-404 has a bunch of images of the temperature distribution within 1WTC at the 97th floor, which might be a decent rebuttal to the questions about how Edna Cintron could have stood in the hole in the north face of the tower. (Those page numbers are the PDF file's electronic page numbers, not the different numbering system used for the numbers printed at the bottom of each page.)

wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

Also, I made an image of my own using Google Earth after seeing Christophera's ongoing claims that his spire_dust-3.jpg image taken from Liberty State Park in New Jersey clearly shows 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. Using Google Earth, I lined up the approx. viewing angle of the picture (passing just south of the domed-roofed, 645-foot-tall 2WFC tower and over some Battery Park City apartment buildings) and measured the distance just to the nearest shore in New Jersey and found it to be well in excess of a mile... and that's not even the full distance from the camera! (And also not even including the height *up* to the top of the "spire", which is taller than the 645-foot height of 2WFC.) How could your eyes even see three-inch-wide rebar from a distance of well over a mile, even if it were a more detailed, less compressed image than spire_dust-3.jpg is?

i3.tinypic.com/15chnnl.jpg

Of course I figured it was more than a mile away, having been around there when the towers were still around, but I've been thinking Christophera has been thinking everybody was exaggerating when they said the pic was taken from more than a mile away.

This is the Christophera photo I've been referring to:
home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

tacodaemon

24th June 2006, 04:29 PM

This is the Christophera photo I've been referring to:
home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

Oh, and I would speculate that that big column of dark smoke/dust to the right of the "spire" in that image is the same thing Christophera's been referring to as the "concrete core" in one of the other collapse images.

Ducky

24th June 2006, 04:30 PM

Welcome Tacodaemon! :)

Great post, thanks for the links. Ive reposted them for you as links below:

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

http://i3.tinypic.com/15chnnl.jpg

Pardalis

24th June 2006, 08:25 PM

Second, he comes from a province that believes it's culture is superior than the rest of canada.

COMPLETE AND UTTER BULL S**T

F**K OFF :mad: :mad: :mad:

Pardalis

24th June 2006, 08:27 PM

Or at least "distinct", whatever that means.

Yeah, you've got a point. And this is a cause of friction between me and my fellow Québécois.

Keep bending over Belz...

Bonne St-Jean.

CptColumbo

24th June 2006, 09:38 PM

You ask too many questions captain.
As always, "I [had] just one more question."

Regnad Kcin

24th June 2006, 10:10 PM

...(btw, i dont punctuate or capitalize in forums)...May I ask why? Simply curious.

gumboot

24th June 2006, 10:39 PM

On the WTC collapse thing...

Is anyone familiar with the New York Times "Fatal Confusion" series?

They have an interactive here (http://www.nytimes.com//packages/html/nyregion/20020707_wtc_FIRE/index_FIRE.html)

Unfortunately the article itself requires subscription. The details for the article are:

FATAL CONFUSION
A Troubled Emergency Response; 9/11 Exposed Deadly Flaws In Rescue Plan
Sunday July 7, 2002
REPORTED AND WRITTEN BY JIM DWYER, KEVIN FLYNN AND FORD FESSENDEN. (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 1, Column 2, 6089 words

Interestingly, according to their reports, between 1000 and 1009, in North Tower (collapses 1029)

"A firefighter, possibly from ladder 3, reports a collapse on a floor in the 60's over the radio. It is the highest floor reported reached in the building."

This seems to indicate the building's collapse began much earlier than when it was obvious from the outside. And bear in mind the North Tower was hit very high. A floor "in the 60's" is WAY below the impact point. We can only speculate on the condition of floors between there and the impact site.

However if sections of the buildings had collapsed internally well before the moment of visible external collapse, that explains why it came down so "quickly" (not that any of us think it came down quickly anyway...).

Something to ponder.

And by the way... the very first 9/11 conspiracy video I saw was a thing called "In Plane Site". It was utter garbage, infact "Loose Change" seems veritably "factual" by comparison. I'm curious if anyone else had previously seen this nonsense?

-Andrew

Gravy

24th June 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sal The Butcher :
...(btw, i dont punctuate or capitalize in forums)...
May I ask why? Simply curious.
I've always been interested in this issue. Punctuation and capitalization were invented to increase the legibility of the written word. They work. No offense intended, Sal, but to me, when a stranger wants me to read something without capitalization and punctuation, it makes me think that they want me to work unnecessarily hard to understand their prose.

Pardalis

24th June 2006, 11:23 PM

the movie makes refernces to things that many are not aware of, and these things can be researched

Sure, extra-terrestrial life on other planets is possible, and worth researching (NASA's recent discoveries of extra solar planets, the Mars missions, etc.) So I guess "E.T.", "Superman", "Alien", "War of The Worlds", "The Day The Earth Stood Still", "Close Encounters of The Third Kind" make interesting points too.

Regnad Kcin

24th June 2006, 11:26 PM

Precisely, Gravy. The use of proper grammar, as well as general rules of language, show consideration for those with whom one is attempting to communicate.

Gravy

24th June 2006, 11:31 PM

I dropped in for the last few minutes of a "Loose Change" screening in Staten Island tonight. It was in a great little café/bookshop/performance space that's run by a neo-hippie commune. JREFer Tamarillicent posted about the screening a few days ago, and I discouraged her from attending because the leader of the commune was recently shot six times by a stalker who didn't kill him and hasn't been captured and is still sending threatening messages to the press. It's been in the NYC papers a lot. I had always planned to attend the screening but I didn't want to encourage others to do so, so I apologize, Tamarillicent!

Anyway, only 11 adults were there, plus a few kids. It's been a while since I actually watched any of "Loose Change," and the last 15 minutes, like the rest of the video, made me want to vomit. There's the end of the "flight 93 landed in Cleveland" idiocy, the "phony phone calls," the "living hijackers," the "phony bin Laden video," Larry Silverstein's insurance, the "stolen $167 billion in gold," and the final call to action, to "do anything."

Two people applauded, but on the whole it was a very subdued group, as one might expect on a rainy Saturday night at a downer of a screening at a hippie hangout that may be under observation by a murderous stalker.

I handed out half-page flyers to the attendees. They seemed fairly stunned, but were polite. The café manager, who presented the video, was clearly agitated and wanted to know why I disagreed with a production that was "mostly eyewitness testimony." Oy! I told him why.

This was the content of the flyers.
[Front of half-page flyer]

All of the claims made in the movie “Loose Change” are false.

“Oh, come on. All of them?”

Really. All of them. And they’re not just wrong, they’re egregiously wrong.

Many of these claims can be refuted with just a few minutes of internet research. The creators of “Loose Change,” Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas, chose not to do that research. They simply accepted every 9/11 conspiracy theory that came their way, and unquestioningly put them in their movie. All of their errors have been pointed out to them, but these young men continue to promote their movie as the “truth.” It is quite the opposite.

Furthermore, while “Loose Change” is dedicated to the victims of 9/11, its creators repeatedly and publicly disparage those victims and their families. They are hypocrites of the worst kind.

For a detailed, line-by-line refutation of every claim in “Loose Change,” please download my “Loose Change Viewer Guide” at http://tinyurl.com/epp82 or view it online at http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

To get an idea of the outrageously ignorant and disrespectful things these men say during interviews, please see my document “Loose Change Creators Speak” http://911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

Thank you for not supporting ignorance! [My Sig.] Mark Roberts email: itmatters@mail.com

[Reverse of half-page flyer]

Dylan Avery, writer and director of “Loose Change,” being interviewed by host Jack Blood on the radio program "Deadline Live.” The interview is promoted on the "Loose Change” website: http://www.loosechange911.com/

Avery: Ha Ha Ha Ha! Have you seen how small those things are? Like, if I was on a flight, with, you know, at least 50 other people – because that's the smallest number I think was on 9/11 – if I was in the cabin, with 50 other people, and five people – I don't care if they're Muslim or not – stand up with box cutters and say they're gonna hijack the plane, [B]I'm gonna laugh in their face!

Blood: (mocking an Arabic accent): It is my preevilege to keel you with thees box cutter!

Avery: Ha ha!

Blood: Didn't Rumsfeld say, right after this happened, that they had actually done this with plastic knives and not box cutters?

Avery: Yeah, he said that in the same interview where he said that a missile hit the Pentagon.

Blood: OH MY GOD! HE'S GOT A PLASTIC KNIFE!

Avery: HAHAHA!

Blood: RUN!

Avery: HE'S GOT A BUTTER KNIFE FROM BREAKFAST! OH, NO!

Blood: Take the plane, sir. We don't want any trouble.

Avery: HE'S GOING TO SCRATCH ME A LITTLE BIT! HUH HUH!

Blood: UN-BELIEVABLE! Well, that's exactly what we're saying. That's an overused term, or underused term, "unbelievable."

Avery: (Still laughing): It's ABSOLUTELY unbelievable!

Blood: (doing accent again): It's un-bee-leevable!

Avery: What's even MORE unbelievable is how people will DEFEND this!

gumboot

25th June 2006, 12:00 AM

Awesome work!

What I think is important is we dont lay out a whole plethora of our own speculation. We just go "well that's not true, and you can find out here, but we also suggest you go look other places to make sure we're being honest"

Nothing about our stance DEMANDS acceptance. Unlike their weird commentry like "are you ready for this?" and "It gets better".

*yawn*

Reminds me of those trashy "real life" style bio-pics that trash dead people because they know they can't hit back.

-Andrew

Gravy

25th June 2006, 12:17 AM

Oh, I forgot to say, welcome, tacodaemon!

I hadn't been to Ground Zero at night recently, so I stopped by after the screening tonight. Lots of activity there, which is encouraging. There was a time last year when I gave tours there every single day for five months and never saw a single worker at Ground Zero. And that's a HUGE area. They're two years behind schedule there.

One disappointment was how WTC 7 looked. It's officially open now. By day it looks okay, except for the lower 75 feet, which is covered with steel blast protection The proposed "Freedom Tower" is to have this protection on its lower 200 feet (61 meters). At night, WTC 7 is tacky, tacky, tacky. Above the steel blast protection is a section that they've chosen to illuminate from inside with blue/purple lights. Very 1989. I think it looks like crap. Well, you be the judge.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449e1b53a6d84.jpg

Sal The Butcher

25th June 2006, 02:55 AM

May I ask why? Simply curious.
i type very fast (but not the method where you rest your fingers on teh j and f) and when i use the shift key i tend to make EVEN MORE type-os then i normally do, and i see no need to utilize punctuation as long as what i type can be deciphered without additional effort, forums (at least i believe) are about content, not presentation, so i focus on trying to explain something in a way that people can tell what im talking about, i actually have a decent grasp of grammar and punctuation, and can write quite well, but the more time i spend trying to figure out how to gramatically structure my thoughts the less i manage to relay

Ducky

25th June 2006, 03:10 AM

holy crap that's a sentence!

Well done Sal. When we get confusing confrontational yet incoherent trolls in here, I submit we have you reply to them and dizzy them with run ons. ;)

All that aside, welcome.

gumboot

25th June 2006, 03:48 AM

One disappointment was how WTC 7 looked. It's officially open now.

Wow... Disco Inferno... or something...

-Andrew

Belz...

25th June 2006, 05:12 AM

Keep bending over Belz...

Bonne St-Jean.

Well exccuuuuuuse ME for wanting people to get along.

And no thanks. People's pyromaniac tendencies don't interest me ;)

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 07:36 AM

MarkyX

25th June 2006, 07:54 AM

MarkyX has got some nerve insulting my people the day of our national holiday.

If you don't mind it Belz, it's all good. I FOR ONE WON'T STAND FOR IT.

@MarkyX: I'm from Montréal and I don't believe any of the CT's, I think the United States is a great country and I don't think Québec is better than Canada.

So your opinion about Quebecers is complete rubbish and very distastefull.

Not a nice way to make friends.

I was born from quebec and there is a damn good reason why my family decided to move to Ontario.

I've been back there several times in the past but refuse to go there even though my relatives are there. Insults and snobs are just a few choice words to describe when I suddenly start speaking english instead of french.

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 07:59 AM

I'm sure you're blowing things out of proportions Marky.

If I went to Alberta and spoke only French, how would people react you think? Do you know the expression "French bashing?"

Brainster

25th June 2006, 08:13 AM

i type very fast (but not the method where you rest your fingers on teh j and f) and when i use the shift key i tend to make EVEN MORE type-os then i normally do, and i see no need to utilize punctuation as long as what i type can be deciphered without additional effort, forums (at least i believe) are about content, not presentation, so i focus on trying to explain something in a way that people can tell what im talking about, i actually have a decent grasp of grammar and punctuation, and can write quite well, but the more time i spend trying to figure out how to gramatically structure my thoughts the less i manage to relay

No offense, but that's rationalizing your laziness. What you're really saying is that your words--no check that, your thoughts--are so important that you can't be bothered to organize them in a coherent fashion. That's not writing, that's typing (poorly of course).

Your unwillingness to learn touch-typing is symptomatic of this laziness. It should be obvious that you cannot type as fast with the hunt and peck method as you can with touch-typing. Yes, it's a little slower at first, but as you get the hang of it, you will be able to impart more truth (and less trtuh) to more people. Once you've got that down, think about rewriting to sharpen your arguments.

I don't want to over-generalize here, but this seems to be one of the frequent problems with the Loosers. Their time is too important to bother with details, so when somebody shows up to point out flaws in the movie, the response is "Talk to me when you've seen all the other videos at Universal Seed". It's the quantity versus quality argument you allude to with the bit about "the more time i (sic) spend trying to figure out how to gramatically (sic) structure my thoughts the less i (sic) manage to relay".

Debating is a difficult process. It requires research, analysis, preparation and organization. If you skip any of those steps, you might as well show up to a gunfight with a butter knife.

dubfan

25th June 2006, 08:34 AM

Debating is a difficult process. It requires research, analysis, preparation and organization. If you skip any of those steps, you might as well show up to a gunfight with a butter knife.

Or he could start his own internet "radio" show. There's always that.

dubfan

25th June 2006, 08:42 AM

I hadn't been to Ground Zero at night recently, so I stopped by after the screening tonight. Lots of activity there, which is encouraging. There was a time last year when I gave tours there every single day for five months and never saw a single worker at Ground Zero. And that's a HUGE area. They're two years behind schedule there.

Gravy, what do you and the other NYC'ers here think of the plans for GZ? I've been following the whole thing since the outset (mostly with disgust, I'm sad to say), and I'm not optimistic that what they're planning to do there is going to end up satisfying anyone.

As for WTC7....I thought the picture looked kinda cool actually, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it in person. The steel blast protection looks like *****.

It's funny... I was at GZ a few years ago and walked the perimeter of the site. Walked right up in front of the new WTC7. At the time I had NO IDEA about the WTC7 controversy and that I'd be debating it with a bunch of lunatics a few years later. I wish I had known more about what I was looking at at the time.

dubfan

25th June 2006, 08:46 AM

Edit: sorry, removed the hotlink. Forgot the rules for a sec.

Source: http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/and_ponies_for_voteswheres_my_pony/

RandFan

25th June 2006, 08:50 AM

http://www.sondrak.com/archive/skpics2/bushboard2.jpg

Source: http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/and_ponies_for_voteswheres_my_pony/:D Thanks dubfan, that just made my day.

Let's spend bilions, risk getting caught, risk failure, to sieze oil that we simply could have purchased in the first place.

Brainster

25th June 2006, 09:05 AM

Edit: sorry, removed the hotlink. Forgot the rules for a sec.

Source: http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/and_ponies_for_voteswheres_my_pony/

That's a Filibuster Cartoon (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/). IIRC the artist is Canadian as well (since the Great White North seems to be the subtopic of the day).

dubfan

25th June 2006, 09:08 AM

That's a Filibuster Cartoon (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/). IIRC the artist is Canadian as well (since the Great White North seems to be the subtopic of the day).

Ooh, thank you, I didn't know that.

It looks like the original source is actually here: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060619

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 09:25 AM

wow, this is a great site. I love his humour, and his drawing.

I like this one especially. :D http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060513

dubfan

25th June 2006, 09:33 AM

RandFan

25th June 2006, 09:41 AM

By the way, in case anyone didn't know, JREF users "Brainster" and "JamesB" are the brains behind the Screw Loose Change blog (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/). They seem rather unexplainably modest about this, but they deserve a plug, because their blog is hilarious and smart and the source of hours of 9/11 CT entertainment. I hadn't visited in a while and read some of the posts this morning, and other JREF'ers might appreciate a reminder to visit over there, too, periodically. From the Blog,

Yeah, OK. Obviously Specialist Rowe (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/korey-rowe-supports-threatening.html) didn't learn anything when he was assaulting with the first wave into Afghanistan. A Javelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_anti-tank_missile), which looks even less like a Boeing 767 than a cruise missile (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/which-one-of-these-is-not-like-other.html) does, has a shaped charge warhead of all of 8.5KG, and would not punch a 90 foot wide hole in the side of the Pentagon, and continue through 3 rings of the Pentagon while dispersing airplane parts, much less cause a huge fireball billowing into the air. :D "While dispersing airplane parts" That's rich.

MarkyX

25th June 2006, 09:53 AM

wow, this is a great site. I love his humour, and his drawing.

I like this one especially. :D http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060513

Been his follower for years now. COnservative BC cartoonist and had a few exchanges with him before when he mocked Ontario voters (we are not all dumb!). His cartoons are a random hit or miss.

Strangely enough, I find his articles on Canada much more informative and educational than my high school :eye-poppi

JamesB

25th June 2006, 10:13 AM

Thanks. That is the first time anyone has ever called me "modest". It usually goes something along the lines of, "Shut the %^#@ up you arrogant @#$!"

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 10:43 AM

Been his follower for years now. COnservative BC cartoonist and had a few exchanges with him before when he mocked Ontario voters (we are not all dumb!). His cartoons are a random hit or miss.

Strangely enough, I find his articles on Canada much more informative and educational than my high school :eye-poppi

His guide to Canada is not bad, of course I don't completely agree with his views on Québec, but that's expected;)

I don't mind being mocked at from time to time, as long as it's well intentioned.

Brainster

25th June 2006, 11:11 AM

By the way, in case anyone didn't know, JREF users "Brainster" and "JamesB" are the brains behind the Screw Loose Change blog (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/). They seem rather unexplainably modest about this, but they deserve a plug, because their blog is hilarious and smart and the source of hours of 9/11 CT entertainment. I hadn't visited in a while and read some of the posts this morning, and other JREF'ers might appreciate a reminder to visit over there, too, periodically.

Thanks, we get some of our best material from this forum and its members.

Just thought I'd provide a little explanation on my nick; it's not intended as a boast about cranial capacity. I posted for years on Usenet with the somewhat more self-deprecating nickname of Brain Death (long story), so when I started blogging I tried to create the Brain Death blogspot, but was dismayed to find it already taken. So I decided to call my main blog (mostly center-right politics and sports) "Brainster" a la the Saturday Night Live character who did riffs on names, calling Mike, "The Mikester! Mikaroonius!"

dubfan

25th June 2006, 11:34 AM

Thanks, we get some of our best material from this forum and its members.

Funny you should say that. You'd think that after our 3 monster Loose Change threads (with, what, 150,000+ views and hundreds of pages, and who knows how many contributors and subsidiary threads) that JREF would've exhausted all the possibilities for stupidity that that silly video had to offer. After following this thread for two months, I thought I'd seen it all.

But your blog shows that, as much stupidity as you think is present in Loose Change, there's always more to discover. It's like a bottomless pit of stupidity. Its depths can never be fully plumbed.

JamesB

25th June 2006, 11:55 AM

So true, as Allahpundit on Hotair said, during our first couple of weeks of blogging:

The first rule of blogging is to choose a subject that will supply you with an endless source of material to criticize. Mission accomplished, boys.

Popular Mechanics has already traveled this road, of course, but as you can see from the Google Video top twenty, there’s no shortage of patriotic dissidents who need reminding.

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/05/10/new-blog-brutally-crushes-loose-changes-dissent-with-facts-and-logic/

JamesB

25th June 2006, 12:10 PM

These guys crack me up. We have been arguing for years that it would be impossible to wire the buildings with explosives, since the crashing airplane would screw things up. So now a CTer uses this idea, as an argument that THERE WERE NO PLANES!

(c1team @ Jun 25 2006, 05:59 PM)
If you really think about it, it's so much harder to CGI/bluescreen w/e then to either switch/remote control some planes into a building. If your gonna kill some people and do series damage why bring hollywood into it? Also stupid to think that since more video was taken of the second strike then the first and to say it was CGI.

The basic fact is, whoever is doing this is going to use some real ****. Were talking about a WORLD EVENT!

Killtown, I'm sure your a real good guy but you need to lose your tunnel vision of no planers.

Did you ever stop to think that if they crashed a real 767 into the tower that they wouldn't be able to demo the exact floor they wanted to because the 767 would ruin their placements of the explosives?

What's my "tunnel vision", the truth?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6919

I swear, if any of them actually had to put together a coherent theory their collective heads would explode.

dubfan

25th June 2006, 12:18 PM

You could have a blog just about Killtown. I love that guy's posts.

I wonder if he's a troll, or if he really believes all the crap he says.

JamesB

25th June 2006, 12:24 PM

You just have to love their thought process: "If it is impossible for there to be both a plane crash and explosives, the logical conclusion must be there was no plane crash!"

Belz...

25th June 2006, 12:25 PM

I was born from quebec and there is a damn good reason why my family decided to move to Ontario.

I've been back there several times in the past but refuse to go there even though my relatives are there. Insults and snobs are just a few choice words to describe when I suddenly start speaking english instead of french.

Yeah, people here DO tend to look down at people when they speak other languages.

And they say French people are beign discriminated against.

Hatred is a double-edged sword.

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 12:35 PM

I mearly enquired about a logical fallacy. I wasn't the one who brought up that whole debate. ;)

ETA: Now let's keep the discussion about Loose Change and the CTs shall we?

Class

25th June 2006, 12:45 PM

You could have a blog just about Killtown. I love that guy's posts.

I wonder if he's a troll, or if he really believes all the crap he says.
He was cited in the "Thanks to:" section at the end of Loose Change 2nd Edition and he is a moderator (or at least he was).

His posts are a riot. He claims there is no true amatuer footage of the plane hitting the second tower, and when people post links to amatuer footage, he says CGI'd or that it's amatuer, but not "truly amatuer".

EDIT: Almost forgot about his claims of explosives and/or cutting charges blowing the plane shaped hole in the sides of the WTC. His evidence is that both planes hit at the same angles.

dubfan

25th June 2006, 12:51 PM

Jeebus, they can't even get the flight numbers right.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6917

1,200 La Conf. Shown The Fakery Of Flt 165, ....and many "got it"

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 12:55 PM

What bothers me, is not only will regular people easily believe Loose Change without thinking the film's propositions through, they don't even bother finding out who the filmmakers are and what else they are saying.

Brainster

25th June 2006, 01:00 PM

Funny you should say that. You'd think that after our 3 monster Loose Change threads (with, what, 150,000+ views and hundreds of pages, and who knows how many contributors and subsidiary threads) that JREF would've exhausted all the possibilities for stupidity that that silly video had to offer. After following this thread for two months, I thought I'd seen it all.

But your blog shows that, as much stupidity as you think is present in Loose Change, there's always more to discover. It's like a bottomless pit of stupidity. Its depths can never be fully plumbed.

Well, that is, until the final cut comes out, when everything will be absolutely perfect, all those niggling little errors that Gravy and the rest of us have used to poke holes in the film will be fixed and everybody will be forced to acknowledge the "Truth".

But seriously, these folks are only beginning their descent into decades of madness. As you know, Fetzer's a major JFK nut as well as a Truther, and he's always been able to come up with some spectacular new theory to sell his latest book. In 1998 he was claiming that Zapruder was a CIA man and the film was a hoax. There will always be a new dot to be connected, a new technology to be retroactively fit into the story, a new person implicated in the conspiracy or the coverup.

JamesB

25th June 2006, 01:07 PM

Fetzer is my newest favorite loon. One could dedicate an entire blog to him too. My favorite is where he claims Halliburton got a $500 million contract to build concentration camps in the US, most likely on closed military bases.

And if that weren't bad enough, they were importing Chinese made guillotines to use in this camps.

I am not sure whether he was more upset with the guillotines, or the fact that they were made in China. What is wrong with US made guillotines after all! Don't we make anything in this country anymore? WalMart must be behind it somehow.

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 01:10 PM

I was wondering, these people are asking for an independant international investigation, right? So:

whom are they asking this to? So far, as far as I know, they just raised questions and asked no one and no institutions directly

Who should have the authority to start such an investigation?
Who is supposed to assemble the team of experts? The UN council? They can't even decide what to do with Sudan.

Who will pay for such an investigation?

At wich point the investigation should end? Are they asking to investigate their theories, or just the events that took place?

I'm starting to think they don't even want an other investigation because they know their demands are impossible.

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 01:13 PM

I am not sure whether he was more upset with the guillotines, or the fact that they were made in China. What is wrong with US made guillotines after all! Don't we make anything in this country anymore? WalMart must be behind it somehow.

It's not like a guillotine is an especially difficult aparatus to assemble and construct. Why would they need to import Chinese ones?

ETA: And why would they need guillotines when they got guns? lol

Johnny Pixels

25th June 2006, 01:20 PM

Can someone check my maths and logic in this thread to make sure I'm not digging myself some kind of illogical maths hole?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6884&st=30

I'm Jonathan Picture-Elements, I've not worked out how to link to individual posts on there yet.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 01:32 PM

Gravy, what do you and the other NYC'ers here think of the plans for GZ? I've been following the whole thing since the outset (mostly with disgust, I'm sad to say), and I'm not optimistic that what they're planning to do there is going to end up satisfying anyone.
Exactly. Whatever they do – or don't do –*at Ground Zero, it's going to piss off a lot of people. I wish they would leave the area as a memorial (except for WTC 7, which is off to the side). The result is going to be a strange mix:

Holy ground...with shopping!
Freedom Tower: feeling lucky?
The New Ground Zero: because nothing says "respect for the dead" like a few million square feet of back-office space for brokerage houses.
The World Trade Center has always been a great place to do business! Our detractors like to harp on the fact that we've had some terrorist setbacks. We prefer to think of them as terrorist opportunities. Here's something to consider. While at its operational peak, the World Trade Center hosted over 150,000 workers and visitors per work day. Yet on average, we lose only 81 people per year to terrorism! That's right, more people die from natural causes at the World Trade Center than from terrorism! WTCx3: The third time's the charm!

Gravy

25th June 2006, 01:42 PM

These guys crack me up. We have been arguing for years that it would be impossible to wire the buildings with explosives, since the crashing airplane would screw things up. So now a CTer uses this idea, as an argument that THERE WERE NO PLANES!
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6919
I swear, if any of them actually had to put together a coherent theory their collective heads would explode.
The Steven E. Jones theory is that all the floors were wired with explosives. (Well, not wired. He thinks they were radio-controlled explosives) That way, the detonator operator could select the correct floors after the planes hit. The explosives would have to be protected from the heat and damage, of course, but Jones doesn't see that as a problem.
Makes perfect sense.

Hawk one

25th June 2006, 01:53 PM

Exactly. Whatever they do – or don't do –*at Ground Zero, it's going to piss off a lot of people. I wish they would leave the area as a memorial (except for WTC 7, which is off to the side). The result is going to be a strange mix:

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I tend to be rather pragmatic about whether to build something back on the spot. One of the things people that know they are about to die tend to tell other people is that they have to keep on living. I don't see it as a sign of disrespect as such to get it back to being a proper business area again. And I probably don't think their promotional slogans will be that blatant. :p (Then again, you never know...)

But, I will be the first to admit that I haven't seen WTC in person before it fell, and I haven't seen the spot hundreds of times afterwards, so I am nowhere nearly as emotionally attached to the disaster area as I could be (and perhaps should be?).

Kent1

25th June 2006, 02:47 PM

The Steven E. Jones theory is that all the floors were wired with explosives. (Well, not wired. He thinks they were radio-controlled explosives) That way, the detonator operator could select the correct floors after the planes hit. The explosives would have to be protected from the heat and damage, of course, but Jones doesn't see that as a problem.
Makes perfect sense.
Jones theory is that an unknown amount of floors and some unknown combination of explosives and thermite/thermate(possibly superthermite) caused the buildings to fall.
Since thermite can't burn sideways he is trying to come up with some sort of fireproof, ultra tough cylinder/wedge that was welded to an unknown amount of core/perimeter columns that causes thermite to burn in diagonal lines.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 02:58 PM

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I tend to be rather pragmatic about whether to build something back on the spot. One of the things people that know they are about to die tend to tell other people is that they have to keep on living. I don't see it as a sign of disrespect as such to get it back to being a proper business area again. And I probably don't think their promotional slogans will be that blatant. :p (Then again, you never know...)

But, I will be the first to admit that I haven't seen WTC in person before it fell, and I haven't seen the spot hundreds of times afterwards, so I am nowhere nearly as emotionally attached to the disaster area as I could be (and perhaps should be?).
I want to make it clear that the opinion I expressed above isn't one I've ever pressed on anyone...except here! I wouldn't want the thankless job of planning that site.

To me, the most important pragmatic concerns are these:

There's no need for the office space, and the site hasn't attracted new tenants on its own merits. There is a glut of development in NYC now. To attract tenants to Ground Zero, the city, state and federal governments are offering enormous tax incentives and bond packages. Taxpayers are paying businesses to move to Ground Zero. That's not unusual for New York City, but I believe the incentives offered are unprecedented. And the more that happens, the more businesses will put their hands out and demand more, "or else." It's been happening for years. New York has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in recent to keep business here that merely threatened to leave, but that had no real plans to go. Now, we're spending more money than that on companies just to keep them from moving to MIDTOWN. Goldman Sachs is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the city, plus $1.6 billion in federally-backed Liberty Bonds, in order to build a new HQ at Ground Zero and not in midtown Manhattan.

That's a huge pragmatic concern for me.

My major pragmatic concern is the obvious fact that two major terrorist attacks have occured there, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Building an enormous skyscraper like Freedom Tower, as opposed to structures that are smaller, safer, and less inviting to terrorists, does not strike me as a wise thing to do. That building will be a purely symbolic gesture, except that real people will be working there. Comapnies that take the incentives and move there will be putting their employees in the position of potentially working in the world's biggest target, or of leaving their jobs.

Hawk one

25th June 2006, 03:07 PM

I want to make it clear that the opinion I expressed above isn't one I've ever pressed on anyone...except here! I wouldn't want the thankless job of planning that site.

[snip]

It wasn't pressing your opinion at all. It was voicing your opinion, and you are more than allowed to do that. Especially here. And I'm glad you did so.

And also, thanks for giving me details about the practical issues. I was, as you can imagine, pretty much ignorant to most of this, except that I knew it wasn't at all unusual to generally give huge tax breaks to the businesses. So, you've given me some good info to think about, and I can already say that I see your point, and am quite likely to agree with it. ;)

Gee, this is getting all too nice and logical and stuff. Someone post a link to the latest LC foolery, quick!

Pardalis

25th June 2006, 03:37 PM

My major pragmatic concern is the obvious fact that two major terrorist attacks have occured there, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Building an enormous skyscraper like Freedom Tower, as opposed to structures that are smaller, safer, and less inviting to terrorists, does not strike me as a wise thing to do. That building will be a purely symbolic gesture, except that real people will be working there. Comapnies that take the incentives and move there will be putting their employees in the position of potentially working in the world's biggest target, or of leaving their jobs.

I hadn't thought of that this way. It's an interesting take. But the problem with that I think is it implies that America should stop building huge skyscrapers. And what kind of message would that leave for the terrorists? That they've wone? No, I think Freedom Tower is a powerful message.

JamesB

25th June 2006, 03:40 PM

It's not like a guillotine is an especially difficult aparatus to assemble and construct. Why would they need to import Chinese ones?

ETA: And why would they need guillotines when they got guns? lol

Yeah, but getting shot is so mundane, how original is that? Hell, most of the major rap stars have been shot several times. Being guillotined on the other hand has that cool French Revolution Marie Antionette thing going for it.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 04:12 PM

Jones theory is that an unknown amount of floors and some unknown combination of explosives and thermite/thermate(possibly superthermite) caused the buildings to fall.
Since thermite can't burn sideways he is trying to come up with some sort of fireproof, ultra tough cylinder/wedge that was welded to an unknown amount of core/perimeter columns that causes thermite to burn in diagonal lines.
I suppose some sort of ceramic container would do, with some way to hold the container tightly against the steel as it melts. And let's not forget the radio-controlled detonators. To install that kind of thing on the necessary floors should only take a few months. I think I remember a time...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449f18110faa5.jpg

tacodaemon

25th June 2006, 04:20 PM

Thanks for the welcomes above... by the way, after posting my second post above, I smacked my forehead and remembered that Christophera's "concrete core" photo shows the South Tower collapse while the "spire" was part of the North Tower collapse. How many times do I need to post before I get editing privileges for my previous posts? [[ETA: never mind, it looks like I can now.]]

Anyway, anyone who thinks that Google Earth measurement graphic I posted will be useful for future discussions with CTers can go ahead and use it with my blessings. (How long until Christophera's current ban ends?)

By the way, in case anyone didn't know, JREF users "Brainster" and "JamesB" are the brains behind the Screw Loose Change blog.

I'll agree with that, and it was Screw Loose Change that let me know Randi's fans were talking about Loose Change online; I actually didn't know until now that JREF had a Web forum. Although I didn't sign up to post until clawing my eyes out watching dubfan dealing with that Gerard character whose proof that there were no WTC planes is his own lack of understanding of image compression and forward momentum.

Anyway, some poking around on YouTube and Google Video found me some CTs whose narration style undercuts his presentation even more than, like, I mean, hey man, Dylan's does. Check out this guy's "angry drunk muttering on a streetcorner" sound:

youtube.com/watch?v=40m3p8z-IJw

They all ought to hire the guy who hosted the "that was not an American Airlines" clip* since he at least has a sorta professional-looking on-camera style.

* screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-eyewitness-evidence.html

tacodaemon

25th June 2006, 04:47 PM

Man, I feel kind of sorry for Jules and Gedeon Naudet. The very top Google hit for "Naudet brothers" right now is a "review" of their film by the no-planes-hit-the-WTC woo-woo Scott Loughrey. Who also cites Webfairy and Ubinger, even though I'm pretty sure Ubinger isn't a no-planer. (Didn't he complain once about being quoted in support of a hologram theory, since he doesn't believe in the hologram theory -- although the no-planers apparently have abandoned the hologram theory too, considering how upset Gerard gets when people bring it up. I swear, keeping track of these CTers is worse than keeping track of the splintering of communist groups in the '50s and '60s.)

And then a few hits below that for the "Naudet brothers" search is some nonsense from Leslie Raphael at serendipity.li, whose evidence that the Naudets are agents of the conspiracy includes: (1) they didn't immediately become Hollywood superstar directors after graduating from a prestigious film school, and (2) they haven't been milking their celebrity for all it's worth since their 9/11 movie came out. You know, never mind that the latter seems in-character for the brothers, who seem sort of reserved and ethically traditional (considering Jules' refusal to film the burning people in the North Tower lobby, and both brothers' refusal to film the human corpses around them).

SBrown

25th June 2006, 04:56 PM

Anyone crash the truthers confrence on LA this weekend???

Gravy

25th June 2006, 05:10 PM

Speaking of Jones and Fetzer, I've tried a couple of times to get them to clarify information about their ST911 members list, to no avail. Perhaps others would like to give it a shot. This was my last attempt:

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, HardEvidence@gmail.com

Subject: Second request for your help
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:58:32 -0500

Dear Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Jones,

I am writing to ask for your help in answering a question that keeps
arising regarding the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. As a critic of some
aspects of the 9/11 Truth Movement (specifically of the movie "Loose
Change), I am on the record as stating that I don't know of any
structural engineers who support the controlled demolition theory.

Several times I have been directed to your website and told that some
of your full and associate members have structural engineering (and
in one case fire safety engineering) credentials. These are some of
the names that have been mentioned:

Jean-Pierre Petit (FM) Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
Brian Duncan (AM) Fire Protection Engineering; Art and Creative
Director; The Flywire, theflywire.com
Eric Hermanson (AM) Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering,
Software Architect
Michael Lovingier (AM) Information technology manager ,
Structural/Environmental Engineering
Ted Muga (AM) Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering

Neither I nor the people who directed me to these names have been
able to verify that the descriptions given for these people indicate
more than areas of interest. Will you please tell me if these people
are credentialed in the professions listed? It would be helpful if
these clarifications were also made on your site. This issue has been
raised with me several times, and no doubt many other people have
wondered about it.

I appreciate your help.

Sincerely,
Mark Roberts

JamesB

25th June 2006, 05:26 PM

JamesB

25th June 2006, 05:28 PM

You have got to love this press release on the recent 9/11 conference. Especially this part praising Alex Jones. What a stud!

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-23-2006/0004386319&EDATE=

According to Alex Jones, despite the official story and cover-up,
Americans now know that the Bush family is intimately involved in the
business dealings of the Bin Laden family. Americans are aware of the
irrefutable fact that Dick Cheney gained sole power over the nation's
emergency air defense only a few months before 9/11 and had NORAD stand
down on that fateful day. Recently declassified documents like "Operation
Northwoods" which illustrates US government plans to hijack passenger
planes to create a false terrorist threat and incite war are waking people
up to the fact that what happened on September 11th is just another in a
long line of false flag, US government-sponsored terror operations.

A founder of the 9/11 truth movement, Alex Jones was recently cited as
being the William Jennings Bryant of the 9/11 band" in a recent New York
Times article
(select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C10FF3F550C768CDDAF0894DE4044 8
2). He has produced 13 documentary films, including Martial Law
(http://www.infowars.com/martial_law_911.htm ) , the definitive September
11th film covering how the government has used terror as a pretext to
metamorphose America into a Police State and providing an in-depth analysis
of the collapse of Building 7.

His latest film, "Terror Storm," which will debut at the American
Scholars Symposium covers government-sponsored terrorism from September 11
to the London Bombings. Jones hosts a national radio show weekdays on over
80 FM and AM stations, and is a frequent guest on Coast to Coast AM. He has
been featured as a prominent figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement in such
publications as the New York Times, Vanity Fair, Popular Mechanics etc. and
has recently appeared on MTV, CNN, CBC etc. He also appears in Warner
Brother's Independent's "A Scanner Darkly," (a film starring Keanu Reaves
and featuring Wynona Ryder, Robert Downing, JR, & Woody Harrelson). A
portion of "A Scanner Darkly" will screen at the American Scholars
Symposium (this is prior to its general release July 7, 2006).

Then when you scroll all the way down to the bottom and you notice:

SOURCE Alex Jones

Gravy

25th June 2006, 05:42 PM

Thanks for the welcomes above... by the way, after posting my second post above, I smacked my forehead and remembered that Christophera's "concrete core" photo shows the South Tower collapse while the "spire" was part of the North Tower collapse. How many times do I need to post before I get editing privileges for my previous posts? [[ETA: never mind, it looks like I can now.]
Christophera is probably aware of that. He's claiming that both towers had concrete cores, and I think he just used the spire because it shows what he thinks it there. Then again, he didn't know that the remains of the core he constantly refers to as 17' thick concrete, is from the north tower, not the south. I'm sure he'll be back in a day or two and will clear that right up.

Anyway, some poking around on YouTube and Google Video found me some CTs whose narration style undercuts his presentation even more than, like, I mean, hey man, Dylan's does. Check out this guy's "angry drunk muttering on a streetcorner" sound:
youtube.com/watch?v=40m3p8z-IJw
Holy mackeral. About flight 77 he says, "Why did they not just fly out (from the airport) 5 or 6 miles and make a u-turn and come right back?" Had to catch my breath after that one.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 05:46 PM

Jean-Pierre Petit (FM) Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering

This is the guy who is considered a joke, even by French standards, for insisting the US is testing anti-matter weapons on Jupiter. I could not find anything he had written on 9/11 though. Maybe it is all in French?

I haven't looked into the other guys, I probably will when I have time, the "scholars" really annoy me.
I'm 99.9% sure that I know the answer to the question I posed to Jones and Fetzer. I just want to see if they wlll acknowledge it.

Do you mean to say we're NOT testing antimatter weapons on Jupiter?

gumboot

25th June 2006, 05:49 PM

They all ought to hire the guy who hosted the "that was not an American Airlines" clip* since he at least has a sorta professional-looking on-camera style.

That was taken from the "In Plane Sight" video... which was the first 9/11 CT video I ever saw... and is probably the most stupid.

It includes the "pod plane" the "missile launched before impact" the "cruise missile into pentagon" etc...

-Andrew

Gravy

25th June 2006, 05:51 PM

You have got to love this press release on the recent 9/11 conference. Especially this part praising Alex Jones. What a stud!
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-23-2006/0004386319&EDATE=
Then when you scroll all the way down to the bottom and you notice:
SOURCE Alex Jones
I've always found Alex Jones to be the best source of promotional material about Alex Jones.

kevin

25th June 2006, 05:52 PM

Christophera is probably aware of that. He's claiming that both towers had concrete cores, and I think he just used the spire because it shows what he thinks it there. Then again, he didn't know that the remains of the core he constantly refers to as 17' thick concrete, is from the north tower, not the south. I'm sure he'll be back in a day or two and will clear that right up.

Some might find this interesting:
http://NoConcreteCore.741.com/

I posted it the other thread christophera haunts, but figured i'd get it here too, just to annoy him some more.

Anyway most of it is my own criticism, I wish I had time to hunt down the stuff other forumites got but really didn't have time to review the thousands of messages in the 2 threads.

My absolute favorite was hunting down one of his quotes proving a concrete core and finding it came from a grade school report.

Sorry about the pop-ups, I'll probably move it somewhere else later own.

Brainster

25th June 2006, 05:58 PM

Thanks for the welcomes above... by the way, after posting my second post above, I smacked my forehead and remembered that Christophera's "concrete core" photo shows the South Tower collapse while the "spire" was part of the North Tower collapse. How many times do I need to post before I get editing privileges for my previous posts? [[ETA: never mind, it looks like I can now.]]

Anyway, anyone who thinks that Google Earth measurement graphic I posted will be useful for future discussions with CTers can go ahead and use it with my blessings. (How long until Christophera's current ban ends?)

I'll agree with that, and it was Screw Loose Change that let me know Randi's fans were talking about Loose Change online; I actually didn't know until now that JREF had a Web forum. Although I didn't sign up to post until clawing my eyes out watching dubfan dealing with that Gerard character whose proof that there were no WTC planes is his own lack of understanding of image compression and forward momentum.

Anyway, some poking around on YouTube and Google Video found me some CTs whose narration style undercuts his presentation even more than, like, I mean, hey man, Dylan's does. Check out this guy's "angry drunk muttering on a streetcorner" sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40m3p8z-IJw

Hmmm, Free Press International, where have we heard of them before? Oh, yeah, they had the blog (http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/) that Dylan focused in on while claiming he was showing us a Newsweek story (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/fast-loose.html).

Ducky

25th June 2006, 05:58 PM

My absolute favorite was hunting down one of his quotes proving a concrete core and finding it came from a grade school report.

:solved1

:dl:

Gravy

25th June 2006, 06:08 PM

I hadn't thought of that this way. It's an interesting take. But the problem with that I think is it implies that America should stop building huge skyscrapers. And what kind of message would that leave for the terrorists? That they've wone? No, I think Freedom Tower is a powerful message.
I think the message would be that we've decided to build safer, more practical buildings. The terrorists can take it any way they like.

tacodaemon

25th June 2006, 06:47 PM

Some might find this interesting:
NoConcreteCore.741.com

I posted it the other thread christophera haunts, but figured i'd get it here too, just to annoy him some more.

Looking good so far. I remember spending pages and pages trying to figure out exactly what was bothering Christophera so much about the steel core columns he keeps referring to as "interior box columns" and not true core columns. Finally when he started using the word "continuous" a lot, I got the idea that he thinks a properly designed skyscraper core must be "continuous" in nature... whatever that means. Apparently in his mind, it's conceptually easy to build a "continuous" concrete core, since you can just keep pouring and it hardens into one mass of concrete, whereas the pictures of steel columns people keep posting are not "continuous" because they are not welded together well enough to meet Christophera's exacting standards.

Among other things, I think this could reflect a failure to understand the scale of the WTC. If Christophera indeed has any experience on putting up buildings, I'd be surprised if they were much taller than a suburban Pizza Hut or elementary school.

Brainster

25th June 2006, 07:30 PM

You have got to love this press release on the recent 9/11 conference. Especially this part praising Alex Jones. What a stud!

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-23-2006/0004386319&EDATE=

Then when you scroll all the way down to the bottom and you notice:

SOURCE Alex Jones

I watched about 20 minutes of Jones' video the other day. It's basically about how governments will create pretexts for war and repression--Reichstag fire, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. It's like the Truthers realize this part of the conspiracy needs a little propping up so they make a little video for it.

kevin

25th June 2006, 08:02 PM

Finally when he started using the word "continuous" a lot, I got the idea that he thinks a properly designed skyscraper core must be "continuous" in nature... whatever that means.

Yeah, I don't get what he means by continuous either. I'm not sure if thinks load bearing columns have to be made in one piece or what. That's not even possible for short buildings. I've never seen a 10 story piece of steel trucking around town. but i've seen lots of 1 story ones with bolt holes in them to make them continuous.

tacodaemon

25th June 2006, 08:39 PM

Yeah, I don't get what he means by continuous either. I'm not sure if thinks load bearing columns have to be made in one piece or what. That's not even possible for short buildings. I've never seen a 10 story piece of steel trucking around town. but i've seen lots of 1 story ones with bolt holes in them to make them continuous.

In a couple of his posts he says something about how they should be "100% butt welded" instead of bolted together -- I think that's what he means, but I'm not sure. He rambles so much, it's almost as bad as Sentinal, albeit with less whitespace. The opposite of those two would be SBrown and his one-word replies to lengthy posts.

Gravy

25th June 2006, 08:47 PM

Hmmm, Free Press International, where have we heard of them before? Oh, yeah, they had the blog (http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/) that Dylan focused in on while claiming he was showing us a Newsweek story (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/fast-loose.html).
Good catch there!

RandFan

25th June 2006, 08:58 PM

around on YouTube and Google Video found me some CTs whose narration style undercuts his presentation even more than, like, I mean, hey man, Dylan's does. Check out this guy's "angry drunk muttering on a streetcorner" sound:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=40m3p8z-IJw

They all ought to hire the guy who hosted the "that was not an American Airlines" clip* since he at least has a sorta professional-looking on-camera style.

* http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-eyewitness-evidence.html Thank you.

tacodaemon

25th June 2006, 09:00 PM

The way the woo-woos have flooded YouTube and Google with videos really bears up the observation about how visual they are, and how they'd rather watch little movies than read lots of text, even though the text can be more information-dense in many cases. In fact, I think the video format works pretty well for a lot of the CT stuff, since it seems like it's easier to build a long video out of innuendo and cherry-picked information than to make a long text file from the same. Kind of like the observation, repeatedly pointed out to me in journalism school, that the transcript for an entire evening TV news program wouldn't fill up a couple of columns of one page of the NY Times.

gumboot

25th June 2006, 09:19 PM

The other thing is its easy for everyone to look at a video and have their own interpretation of what is going on (of course it's not their own interpretation, it's the interpretation the narrator wants them to have). Given that most people have very little skill in serious video interpretation, it means everyone *thinks* they know what's going on, but really don't.

In contrast most (not all, sadly) CTers have reasonable enough reading comprehension that they can't really reinterpret text a different way. It's much harder for them to invent their own version of what is being presented.

-Andrew

dubfan

25th June 2006, 09:21 PM

Yeah, but getting shot is so mundane, how original is that? Hell, most of the major rap stars have been shot several times. Being guillotined on the other hand has that cool French Revolution Marie Antionette thing going for it.

Especially one that was made in China that you got from Wal-Mart.

JamesB

25th June 2006, 11:16 PM

CptColumbo

25th June 2006, 11:23 PM

Well my suspension on the LC forum has ended with me being banned. Since I haven't posted anything there in two weeks, I can only imagine it's because of something I posted here. Not to whine, but that is total BS!

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 01:50 AM

Hmmm, Free Press International, where have we heard of them before? Oh, yeah, they had the blog that Dylan focused in on while claiming he was showing us a Newsweek story.

Unsurprisingly, the Free Press International guy who narrates that video clip, Greg Ericson, is one of those types like Loose Change Jason who believe every conspiracy theory that comes their way. This page brings you his email conversation with a spokesman for the Denver International Airport, which various nutballs believe is built atop a secret underground city run by the New World Order and the space aliens and the Queen of England where little children are tortured underground and so on:

freepressinternational.com/denver.html

Ducky

26th June 2006, 02:38 AM

Unsurprisingly, the Free Press International guy who narrates that video clip, Greg Ericson, is one of those types like Loose Change Jason who believe every conspiracy theory that comes their way. This page brings you his email conversation with a spokesman for the Denver International Airport, which various nutballs believe is built atop a secret underground city run by the New World Order and the space aliens and the Queen of England where little children are tortured underground and so on:

freepressinternational.com/denver.html

[mike meyers]

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sunny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentaveret, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.

Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentaveret?

Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eye! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

[/mike meyers]

kookbreaker

26th June 2006, 03:40 AM

The 9/11 "Scholars" now have a forum set up to debate their profound academic works. Any bets on how long it takes them to ban Gravy?

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=859c6dcd930e75b213a0b1562c2189ba&mforum=911studies

Interesting that it is brumsen as a moderator. He's been struggling over at the BAUTforum trying to make his points there. Even he admits a lot of weakness in the S911 crew. If gravy is banned at this new forum for no good reason, we can outright ask at the bautforum what the deal was.

chipmunk stew

26th June 2006, 05:59 AM

I suppose some sort of ceramic container would do, with some way to hold the container tightly against the steel as it melts. And let's not forget the radio-controlled detonators. To install that kind of thing on the necessary floors should only take a few months. I think I remember a time...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449f18110faa5.jpg
I was in NYC during that cleaning. Totally sucked. I was really looking forward to visiting the Twins, too. You think that sign may have contributed to weakening the structure?

chipmunk stew

26th June 2006, 06:13 AM

"Alex Jones... What a stud!"
SOURCE Alex Jones

http://www.myspace.com/alex_infowarrior

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 07:02 AM

I was in NYC during that cleaning. Totally sucked. I was really looking forward to visiting the Twins, too. You think that sign may have contributed to weakening the structure?

It looks like the sign is held up with huge black cables, but it's actually 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS.

Gravy

26th June 2006, 07:10 AM

The 9/11 "Scholars" now have a forum set up to debate their profound academic works. Any bets on how long it takes them to ban Gravy?

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=859c6dcd930e75b213a0b1562c2189ba&mforum=911studies
I made a lengthy post there, so we'll see what happens. I see that the first reply to that thread was edited by the mod.
http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?p=18&mforum=911studies#18

Brainster

26th June 2006, 07:14 AM

Gravy

26th June 2006, 07:26 AM

Here's a post I'm working on (http://brainsterbackup.blogspot.com/2006/06/free-fallin-again.html) for SLC. We often hear about how the speed of the WTC Towers' collapses indicates controlled demolition, so I thought I'd take a look at the speed of a real CD where we know the height of the building. To my surprise, I discovered that the WTC came down too fast for controlled demolition.

Comments? I don't have any illusions about this proving anything; for one thing I don't buy the 8 and 10 seconds cited by CTers and the 9-11 Commission for the collapse times. It's just another example of how even the evidence the Truthers cite doesn't show what they think it shows.
Lots of variables to consider here. You're only using one example of CD as a representative of all, are the structures similar in construction, what type of CD was it, what structural weakening was done, when did the first charges go off, how tall was the building, are the video speeds correct, etc. I would expect that the first portion of a Twin Tower collapse would be at about the same speed as a CD, and that the last part would be much faster, due to acceleration. Thus I would expect that dividing the time of collapse by the building height would lead to a shorter average time of collapse for the Twin Towers.

Johnny Pixels

26th June 2006, 07:26 AM

Here's a post I'm working on (http://brainsterbackup.blogspot.com/2006/06/free-fallin-again.html) for SLC. We often hear about how the speed of the WTC Towers' collapses indicates controlled demolition, so I thought I'd take a look at the speed of a real CD where we know the height of the building. To my surprise, I discovered that the WTC came down too fast for controlled demolition.

Comments? I don't have any illusions about this proving anything; for one thing I don't buy the 8 and 10 seconds cited by CTers and the 9-11 Commission for the collapse times. It's just another example of how even the evidence the Truthers cite doesn't show what they think it shows.

I did some rough maths involving momentum, and someone else on the LC forum made an excel spreadsheet with them (to try and disprove me) and it came out that the fastest the tower would come down if the floors started collapsing from the top, ie 110 hits 109, then 110 +109 hits 108. Assuming complete conservation of energy, the shortest time was approx 15 seconds. Assuming 75% energy wasted at each stage, the time was 20 seconds. That didn't include the fact that the top section comprised of about 20 floors, and so had over 20 times the mass (because of elevator equipment etc).

CurtC

26th June 2006, 08:07 AM

You have got to love this press release on the recent 9/11 conference. Especially this part praising Alex Jones. What a stud!

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-23-2006/0004386319&EDATE=
...A founder of the 9/11 truth movement, Alex Jones was recently cited as being the William Jennings Bryant of the 9/11 band" in a recent New York
Times article...

Then when you scroll all the way down to the bottom and you notice:

SOURCE Alex Jones
"William Jennings Bryant"?!?

Must be Anita's brother.

Somebody needs to crucify Jones on a cross of thermite.

CurtC

26th June 2006, 08:33 AM

I apologize for my comment above that could sound like I was calling for someone to be harmed. It was a fairly lame reference to a famous William Jennings Bryan speech, but I realize that some, especially our Looser visitors, would be unlikely to know their history, and think I was actually threatening someone or trying to encourage others to harm someone. Sorry about that.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 09:18 AM

I doubt any of the Loosers would know who William Jennings Bryan (or Bryant) is. He hasn't been on MTV's Real World yet.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 10:22 AM

Yeah, I found it odd they were talking about debris being flung out. Isn't their whole argument that it "fell into its own footprint"? Now all of a sudden it is being flung every which way.

Sword_Of_Truth

26th June 2006, 10:26 AM

Anyone crash the truthers confrence on LA this weekend???

I was the rhododendron in the white planter in the lobby.

Mancman

26th June 2006, 10:26 AM

Yeah, I found it odd they were talking about debris being flung out. Isn't their whole argument that it "fell into its own footprint"? Now all of a sudden it is being flung every which way.

If the towers aren't falling into their own footprints in a neat textbook controlled demolition, they're spraying debris for 600ft because of the explosive force of all those pre-planted bombs.

Pardalis

26th June 2006, 10:32 AM

If it was a controlled demotion, it was a real crappy one.

Hellbound

26th June 2006, 10:56 AM

I was the rhododendron in the white planter in the lobby.

I was the white planter.

Next time, don't wear cleats.

:D

Brainster

26th June 2006, 11:03 AM

Lots of variables to consider here. You're only using one example of CD as a representative of all, are the structures similar in construction, what type of CD was it, what structural weakening was done, when did the first charges go off, how tall was the building, are the video speeds correct, etc.

Good points all, I guess I don't really have a post here, just an eyeball poke. And I've got a good one of those coming up.

Sword_Of_Truth

26th June 2006, 11:04 AM

I've just been whacked with the mod-stick over at the 9-11 studies forum.

All I did was quote verbatim a question from the annual interview that Prof. Jones needs to pass every year to keep his job.

"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"

It's a simple question with a purely binary result. You'd think a guy who claims he's been threatened by the MIBs over a paper that's been rejected by the entire faculty at his own school would be able to answer that one. ;-)

chipmunk stew

26th June 2006, 11:50 AM

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6959&view=findpost&p=5611251

William Rodriguez and Jimmy Walter: heroes of Malaysian Islamists

PopeTom

26th June 2006, 12:28 PM

If it was a controlled demotion, it was a real crappy one.

Clear proof that CDI was involved. Only the foremost control demolitions company in the world could make a CD look so bad that those not interested in seeking the "Truth" would think it was a normal collapse. After all what are the chances that the only 3 steel framed building to ever collapse due to fire would do so on the same day.

-PopeTom

oh and :)

JamesB

26th June 2006, 01:51 PM

Some genius on the LC forum thinks he has Gravy debunked. Although I am not sure how he has managed this feat, since the Pentagon doesn't come into the picture until page 25.

Decided to read through the first 2 pages of the "gravy debunk" (the pentagon and opening sequence) and do some counting, this is what I have gathered. I urge you though to read for yourself, and do your own counting, especially if you dont believe me. Also I noticed he has a habit of saying "wrong" then following up with either an opinion or a statement with no source backing up what he says or has nothing to do with the topic at hand... So I suggest doing your own research to see what is right and what is wrong.

Personal opinions: 38
No source: 41
Errors: 24
Other: 50

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6881

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th June 2006, 01:52 PM

Some genius on the LC forum thinks he has Gravy debunked. Although I am not sure how he has managed this feat, since the Pentagon doesn't come into the picture until page 25.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6881

I've been waiting to see if my reply gets me re-suspended or banned.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 01:57 PM

LOL I didn't even notice that was you. I think the chances of getting a serious response are minimal. Some guy has been promising one for months, but I guess he is "busy".

Sal The Butcher

26th June 2006, 02:06 PM

LOL I didn't even notice that was you. I think the chances of getting a serious response are minimal. Some guy has been promising one for months, but I guess he is "busy".
i think i read that, do you mean DJ something?

where exactly can i see this gravy's guide?

Sal The Butcher

26th June 2006, 02:07 PM

is this it or is this a followup? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56079

JamesB

26th June 2006, 02:30 PM

Geez these guys are a bunch of losers. The 9/11 Scholars have this former LTC who is running for Congress. On his website he has a post which says that the Srebrenica massacre never took place. Having served in Bosnia, I found that offensive so I e-mailed him on it. I got this response.

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

Bowman2006@rmbowman.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 9): 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17)

Wow, this must be one serious congressional campaign.

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 02:37 PM

Wow, this must be one serious congressional campaign.

Sheesh, did he make the "Bowman2006" on the front page of http://rmbowman.com/ big enough?

General rule: Anyone who seriously says things like "Wake up, America!" or "Take back America!" should be listened to warily if at all.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 03:30 PM

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 03:40 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

26th June 2006, 03:50 PM

Oh, you guys will like this. You know how Webfairy and Gerard think that that out-of-focus, compression-artifacted still from the Jules Naudet video shows a "blob" (or, as Webfairy calls it, a "Whatzit") flying toward the North Tower? Well, some other woo-woo -- who is on a CIA drug-running conspiracy list with Webfairy -- took the still, blew it up big, sent it through a bunch of edge-detecting Photoshop filters, and spotted a bunch of evil faces in it (http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature.htm) that are the signature of the Reptoid aliens who are probably really at fault.

Humans excel in pattern finding. This does, of course, lead not only to positive hits (calling a truth a truth, calling a lie a lie) but also negative hits (calling a truth a lie, calling a lie a truth). It's a great survival trait, but sometimes it backfires.

Regnad Kcin

26th June 2006, 03:50 PM

Not reptoid aliens, a paranormal hat!

Where is your evidences?

Thanks.

Brainster

26th June 2006, 03:58 PM

Oh, you guys will like this. You know how Webfairy and Gerard think that that out-of-focus, compression-artifacted still from the Jules Naudet video shows a "blob" (or, as Webfairy calls it, a "Whatzit") flying toward the North Tower? Well, some other woo-woo -- who is on a CIA drug-running conspiracy list with Webfairy -- took the still, blew it up big, sent it through a bunch of edge-detecting Photoshop filters, and spotted a bunch of evil faces in it (http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature.htm) that are the signature of the Reptoid aliens who are probably really at fault.

That has got to be the weirdest page that I have seen yet, and I've seen a few wild ones.

Mr. Skinny

26th June 2006, 04:07 PM

Even more laughable Mr. Bowman asserts in a speech that real hourly wages are only 1/3 what they were in the 1950s. Hmm, I know some people who would dispute that. Like, say... every living American economist!
Let's see. I think minimum wage was $0.95/hr. in 1968 (when I got my first job in high school). It's $5.15/hr in Ohio in 2006. So it's at least 5 times what it was about 35 years ago.

Following Mr. Skinny's rule-of-thumb guide that wages double about every 15 years, then I'd guesstimate that in 1950, minimum wage was about $0.50/hr. So, in 1965 it would be $1.00/hr, 1980 - $2.00/hr, 1995-$4.00/hr, 2010? - 8.00/hr. (I think Ohio is pushing for a raise to $7.15/hr right now).

I could listen to an argument that we are maybe 1/3 behind the 1950's, but not 2/3, based on my back-of-the-envelope guess above. Then again, I'm an engineer with no experience in economics.

Any true number crunchers out there?

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 04:12 PM

That has got to be the weirdest page that I have seen yet, and I've seen a few wild ones.

That site's home page (http://www.wiolawapress.com/) indicates that the edge-detect-and-look-for-stuff thing is that person's entire shtick. I wonder if Wilson Bryan Key (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_344.html) has discovered Photoshop yet.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 04:18 PM

Following Mr. Skinny's rule-of-thumb guide that wages double about every 15 years, then I'd guesstimate that in 1950, minimum wage was about $0.50/hr. So, in 1965 it would be $1.00/hr, 1980 - $2.00/hr, 1995-$4.00/hr, 2010? - 8.00/hr. (I think Ohio is pushing for a raise to $7.15/hr right now).

I could listen to an argument that we are maybe 1/3 behind the 1950's, but not 2/3, based on my back-of-the-envelope guess above. Then again, I'm an engineer with no experience in economics.

Any true number crunchers out there?

I looked this up on the BLS website and posted it on my blog. Inflation adjusted we are only about a buck ahead since 1964 (as far back as they go). Not great, but a long ways away from 2/3 worse.

http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/2006/06/ltc-bob-bowman-scholar.html
I am just mystified at how everyone one of these idiots are not just wrong on one particular topic, but on everything they talk about.

kevin

26th June 2006, 04:28 PM

Let's see. I think minimum wage was $0.95/hr. in 1968 (when I got my first job in high school). It's $5.15/hr in Ohio in 2006. So it's at least 5 times what it was about 35 years ago.

The best source I've found for this type of info:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahr.htm

According to his chart, the 1968 minimum wage in constant 2002 dollars was $8.29 and that this was the highest it's ever been.

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/minwg.htm

Brainster

26th June 2006, 04:39 PM

This guy doesn't believe that a plane really hit the World Trade Center, but if it did, he knows how (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=92675&mesg_id=96293) to make sure it hit in the right spot:

Let me stress that the planes/missiles are optional. They could have fitted some sort of "plane magnet" in WTC1 and WTC2 as well, thus ensuring the exact point of impact, however no planes would have been the easiest plan as far as success rate goes and there is photographic evidence to suggest that the planes have been added to the pictures electronically and there are plenty of people here who follow the no planes option as a result.:eye-poppi

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 04:49 PM

^^ These must be those planes made of solid, non-hollow iron that Gerard also seems to fantasize about (since he thinks the fact that the tail of the plane disappeared into the tower would imply that the front of the plane was still moving inside at the same speed).

ETA: Also, note the assumption that the towers had to be completely destroyed in order for the Evil PNAC Conspiracy to get the nation on a war footing -- as though just smashing the planes and burning the heck out of the towers wouldn't be enough by itself. For crying out loud, I can make up more plausible stories about their conspiracy theory than they can, and I don't even believe it!

JamesB

26th June 2006, 04:58 PM

Also, note the assumption that the towers had to be completely destroyed in order for the Evil PNAC Conspiracy to get the nation on a war footing -- as though just smashing the planes and burning the heck out of the towers wouldn't be enough by itself. For crying out loud, I can make up more plausible stories about their conspiracy theory than they can, and I don't even believe it!

Don't forget about WTC7. As I sat there on my couch that dark Tuesday morning, I reassured myself, "Self, yeah I am angry, but at least World Trade Center 7 is still standing..."

RandFan

26th June 2006, 05:01 PM

Don't forget about WTC7. As I sat there on my couch that dark Tuesday morning, I reassured myself, "Self, yeah I am angry, but at least World Trade Center 7 is still standing..."Huh?

dubfan

26th June 2006, 05:03 PM

Don't forget about WTC7. As I sat there on my couch that dark Tuesday morning, I reassured myself, "Self, yeah I am angry, but at least World Trade Center 7 is still standing..."

:D

RandFan

26th June 2006, 05:04 PM

:D Inside joke I guess.

DavidJames

26th June 2006, 05:06 PM

I've been waiting to see if my reply gets me re-suspended or banned.I asked "Slick" for some specific errors of fact. He provided a long response, without any specific errors of fact. I asked again.

hellaeon

26th June 2006, 05:16 PM

That has got to be the weirdest page that I have seen yet, and I've seen a few wild ones.

Mate, google 'David Icke'.

I notice the tired old tact to debate Mr Roberts work is flood your post with 50 things you found wrong. Is it so hard to go into detail about just one of those things, slowly, easy to understand. What is it with people who post SO much. Its tiresome and whats the bet even more then half of the people in support of it would not read it. Its all about 'asking kwestions!'. Flood the other person with so much crap they cant be fugged.

hellaeon

26th June 2006, 05:19 PM

JamesB

26th June 2006, 05:26 PM

:D

I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.

Johnny Pixels

26th June 2006, 05:35 PM

I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.

Isn't it obvious? The mayor moved the plans for the WTC, Silversteins tax records, George Bush's service record and the new world order phone book into WTC 7 and then had it demolished to keep the truth from the people.

Brainster

26th June 2006, 05:41 PM

I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.

Yes, note particularly that when they want a federal government agency to be part of the plot, they just add it, but when it's convenient for the theory those agencies can also be among the victims as well.

BTW, anybody see this USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-06-25-911-health-usat_x.htm) on health impacts to the WTC rescuers? This might be the one place where the Woos have a point. I remember the EPA making noises about how the air quality was safe; it now appears that was a lie. I say "appears" because I'm still skeptical (remember Gulf War Syndrome), but this is a pretty bad story from the government's standpoint.

RandFan

26th June 2006, 05:47 PM

I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.:D

Thanks, I can be a bit slow sometimes. Hey, I actually went to loose change and posed that question.

1.) It housed the CIA. Ahhh.. so what?
2.) Guliani's office was in there. So what?
3.) There were sensitive documents in there. ??????

Those people can sure try one's patience.

tacodaemon

26th June 2006, 05:52 PM

Don't forget about WTC7. As I sat there on my couch that dark Tuesday morning, I reassured myself, "Self, yeah I am angry, but at least World Trade Center 7 is still standing..."

You know they were really targeting the Borders bookstore (http://johnii2.tripod.com/5wtckk.jpg) at WTC5 so as to screw up my in-brain database of convenient pitstops throughout the city. (That Borders didn't make you use a key or token, but the restrooms were in the back of the second floor and kind of difficult to find, so they usually didn't get too dirtied up. It was my preferred spot in the Financial District if I needed to use the facilities. Seeing pics (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=376951) of the aftermath (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=372378) still chokes me up.)

Seriously, though, the CTers have some ad hoc excuse for why every incident on 9/11 happened: They had to fake the crash of United 93 so we would have the "Let's Roll" hero story to get us fired up. They had to destroy WTC7 so as to, um, get rid of some documents or something. It puts me in mind of the strong anthropic principle, or Martin Gardner's completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP) -- "Everything had to happen the way it did, or else it wouldn't have happened the way it did!"

gumboot

26th June 2006, 05:55 PM

Isn't it obvious? The mayor moved the plans for the WTC, Silversteins tax records, George Bush's service record and the new world order phone book into WTC 7 and then had it demolished to keep the truth from the people.

I Thought they flew a guitar-shaped robot plane into it???

:confused:

-Andrew

Brainster

26th June 2006, 06:31 PM

Mate, google 'David Icke'.

Okay, so that photo artifact lizards website is the second weirdest I've seen, after the reptilians. ;)

I notice the tired old tact to debate Mr Roberts work is flood your post with 50 things you found wrong. Is it so hard to go into detail about just one of those things, slowly, easy to understand. What is it with people who post SO much. Its tiresome and whats the bet even more then half of the people in support of it would not read it. Its all about 'asking kwestions!'. Flood the other person with so much crap they cant be fugged.

He did get one point on the differing number of remote control takeoffs and landings, but I think we all saw that as an obvious boner in the film before we found out more. I think James put up a post on the blog about that and I kicked myself for not beating him to it as that was one of the obvious oddities that struck me the first time I saw the movie.

I had a post all queued up at one point about Hani Hanjour's 330-degree turn, pointing out that it would have been a lot easier to make a 30-degree turn the other way, before I found out more and realized that it was because Hanjour missed the Pentagon on the first try and had to circle around.

But he doesn't really address any of the obvious lies and mistakes in the film. It's mostly "let me give 10 examples of where Gravy just expressed scorn instead of providing evidence"--usually in places where there really was no evidence from Dylan either.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 07:04 PM

He did get one point on the differing number of remote control takeoffs and landings, but I think we all saw that as an obvious boner in the film before we found out more. I think James put up a post on the blog about that and I kicked myself for not beating him to it as that was one of the obvious oddities that struck me the first time I saw the movie.

This was explained because they lifted part of a quote from an article, without giving enough of the quote, or adding enough of their own commentary to have it make sense. It is another perfect example of how they just google evidence on the web and piece it together with weird music, without giving any thought to the validity of the argument or the truth of the evidence.

dubfan

26th June 2006, 07:16 PM

This was explained because they lifted part of a quote from an article, without giving enough of the quote, or adding enough of their own commentary to have it make sense. It is another perfect example of how they just google evidence on the web and piece it together with weird music, without giving any thought to the validity of the argument or the truth of the evidence.

I remember a thread over there when Gravy first released his paper. There were about 3 pages and 30+ posts on that stupid remote controlled airplane. There was a retired military aviation guy there who debated whether or not you actually count take-offs and landings in a plane's log book, and blah blah blah.

Eventually it came to light that those were the number of *automated* take-offs and landings, thus the discrepancy.

Someone then had a post that said something like, "Ok, we've resolved the remote-controlled plane issue. What's the next thing that Gravy got wrong?"

*crickets*

I think the thread died right there.

Brainster

26th June 2006, 07:17 PM

Seriously, though, the CTers have some ad hoc excuse for why every incident on 9/11 happened: They had to fake the crash of United 93 so we would have the "Let's Roll" hero story to get us fired up. They had to destroy WTC7 so as to, um, get rid of some documents or something. It puts me in mind of the strong anthropic principle, or Martin Gardner's completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP) -- "Everything had to happen the way it did, or else it wouldn't have happened the way it did!"

This is because the theory is reverse engineered. I talked about this on SLC once. If you look at Loose Change head on the conspiracy they propose doesn't make any sense at all. It's only when you start with the assumption that 9-11 was an inside job and work backwards from there that it seems coherent.

No planes, or robo drones and a missile? The planes are a huge problem for the conspiracy theorist. You can't come up with a rational reason for the airline pilots flying them into the buildings. You don't believe in the hijackers and even if they were Bushco commandos, would they go on a suicide mission?

Ergo it's either no planes or robo planes into the towers. Now, some argue that the hijacking commandos bailed out of the planes after setting the autopilots to crash into the WTC, but for the most part the CTers seem to like the robo drones, except for Killtown and Holmgren, who've gone with CGI.

Ditto with the cellphone/Airfone calls. This struck me as the nuttiest part of Loose Change, but it is crucial to their case. If the calls were made, then there really were hijackers and the drones' theory doesn't um, stack up.

Controlled Demolition? Necessary to cover up the drones. I'm not really sure what the position of the "Scholars" is on this issue; my assumption is that "Shock and Awe" would about cover it, since they apparently believe in the four hijackings. My guess is they're proposing LIHOP with CD?

Pentagon, same problem with the plane, so deny the plane; this time you have the advantage of no film to contradict you, just the testimony of eyewitnesses. You can usually count on a couple folks to get it wrong

Shanksville? This one puzzled me a bit, but if the government was doing the hits, there's no reason for it to crash (or more commonly in CT circles to be shot down). Besides, you've argued that three of the four planes never made it to their fate; why stop there?

Now all that remains is assembling the "evidence" and pretending your initial assumption (that it was Bush and Cheney) is a conclusion you've come to reluctantly after careful deduction.

dubfan

26th June 2006, 07:21 PM

I had a post all queued up at one point about Hani Hanjour's 330-degree turn, pointing out that it would have been a lot easier to make a 30-degree turn the other way, before I found out more and realized that it was because Hanjour missed the Pentagon on the first try and had to circle around.

They have barely legible (but still readable) images of a hardcopy presentation given at the FAA that has screenshots from the radar track of Hani's impossible flight at one of the 911 sites. It might be Gravy's, I honestly can't remember. I personally think the flight path was intentional -- if you look at the track it's quite deliberate. No jinking or anything. I don't think he overshot. I think it was just ordinary energy management -- bleeding off altitude & trading some airspeed for the proper heading.

If I run into them again I'll post a link.

Gravy

26th June 2006, 07:39 PM

JamesB

26th June 2006, 07:52 PM

What happened is they condensed this:

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

Into this:

December 1st, 1984.
A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research. Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.

Without bothering to stop and think if their version made sense. This is the post I discussed it in. Not the most significant point, but amusing.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-math.html

Regnad Kcin

26th June 2006, 07:54 PM

This is because the theory is reverse engineered...Precisely!

I've long considered as much with the JFK assassination. If one starts with the idea that it was a catasrophic climactic occurrence, it then almost requires that the events leading up to it must've been sinister and far-reaching.

Gerald Posner mentions as much in "Case Closed" (from memory): If you place the Holocaust on one side and the Third Reich on the other, they roughly balance out -- worst crime / worst criminals. But do the same thing with JFK and Oswald and the equation comes up wanting. The young and charismatic leader of the free world brought down by... a two-bit punk? It doesn't balance.

Such is our need for neat and tidy storybook narratives. And if it doesn't exist, make it up. Like Great American Hero John Wayne. You know, the guy who stayed out of WWII so he could act in movies.

(Edited for grammar.)

delphi_ote

26th June 2006, 08:29 PM

Precisely!

I've long considered as much with the JFK assassination. If one starts with the idea that it was a catasrophic climactic occurrence, it then almost requires that the events leading up to it must be sinister and far-reaching.
And isn't the story even better if you can write yourself as a hero in the middle of it fighting the evil?

Axiom_Blade

26th June 2006, 09:57 PM

And isn't the story even better if you can write yourself as a hero in the middle of it fighting the evil?

Avery, Bermas, and Rowe. Our saviors!

JamesB

26th June 2006, 10:11 PM

The three stooges?

Brainster

26th June 2006, 10:28 PM

They have barely legible (but still readable) images of a hardcopy presentation given at the FAA that has screenshots from the radar track of Hani's impossible flight at one of the 911 sites. It might be Gravy's, I honestly can't remember. I personally think the flight path was intentional -- if you look at the track it's quite deliberate. No jinking or anything. I don't think he overshot. I think it was just ordinary energy management -- bleeding off altitude & trading some airspeed for the proper heading.

If I run into them again I'll post a link.

I'd be happy to learn otherwise; I'm just going by the supposition that the jokers who hit the WTC found it by flying down the Hudson and that Hanjour picked out the Pentagon visually but couldn't quite hit it the first time around. I'll admit some bias here too because of the picture of the Capitol Dome in shown in the movie of "United 93" that the pilot on that hijacking was depicted as aiming for--that at least colors my impression that these guys were going on visual recognition of the target.

Brainster

26th June 2006, 10:33 PM

And isn't the story even better if you can write yourself as a hero in the middle of it fighting the evil?

That's always been the point of the comparisons of Bush to Hitler. It's not that they want to diminish the evil of Hitler or even (entirely) that they want to elevate the supposed crimes of Bush to that level. It's that they want to see themselves in the role of the noble heroes fighting back against the fascists at great personal risk to themselves.

"Hey, babe, I'm on Bush's enemies list."
Dylan Avery's new pickup line.

JamesB

26th June 2006, 10:44 PM

I'd be happy to learn otherwise; I'm just going by the supposition that the jokers who hit the WTC found it by flying down the Hudson and that Hanjour picked out the Pentagon visually but couldn't quite hit it the first time around. I'll admit some bias here too because of the picture of the Capitol Dome in shown in the movie of "United 93" that the pilot on that hijacking was depicted as aiming for--that at least colors my impression that these guys were going on visual recognition of the target.

I thought the cruise missile used that white line painted on the lawn of the pentagon for directions...

gumboot

26th June 2006, 11:23 PM

UA93 has always bugged me from the CT point of view. Firstly, the issue of it being shot down came up. Somehow the idea that the government shot the plane down proved that it was all a government conspiracy. This made no sense to me. At the time (before I had really looked deeply into it) my first reaction was

"So the government shot it down and then discovered the passengers were about to take over the plane...no wonder they tried to cover up the shooting down... I would"

It ran much like the famous story of New Zealand soldiers at Gallipolli finally taking the much-needed Chunik Bair only to be shelled by a British ship.

Of course now I've looked into it I'm convinced it wasn't shot down at all.

So then we get to the debris scatter - which most CTers claim is "evidence" it was shot down (I'm still waiting to hear how being shot down proves CT). Apparantly the wreckage was spread over 8 square miles.

Even without disputing this statistic (and there seems to be good grounds to dispute the 8 sq mi figure)... just bear in mind *this* statistic.

After a bomb went off inside the aircraft, Pan Am Flight 103 broke up in mid air at 31,000ft over Lockerbie, Scotland. The wreckage covered 845 sq mi.

Even taking into account the different wind conditions and size of the aircraft...

UA93 - 8 sq mi
PA103 - 845 sq mi

Anyone see a problem here?

-Andrew

P.S. note that figure for Pan Am 103 is for the significant debris. Some debris was much further away.

Gravy

27th June 2006, 12:26 AM

I'd be happy to learn otherwise; I'm just going by the supposition that the jokers who hit the WTC found it by flying down the Hudson and that Hanjour picked out the Pentagon visually but couldn't quite hit it the first time around. I'll admit some bias here too because of the picture of the Capitol Dome in shown in the movie of "United 93" that the pilot on that hijacking was depicted as aiming for--that at least colors my impression that these guys were going on visual recognition of the target.
One error in LC that I didn't catch but that was pointed out to me by a German guy recently is that Hanjour didn't overfly the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. He was at that altitude at abour 40 miles out. He was at about 2,200 feet when he made he wide turn, according to ATC.

Brainster

27th June 2006, 12:26 AM

UA93 - 8 sq mi
PA103 - 845 sq mi

Anyone see a problem here?

-Andrew

P.S. note that figure for Pan Am 103 is for the significant debris. Some debris was much further away.

Interesting. My first reaction was that the difference in altitude was too great, but I suspect it's a relatively trivial physics problem to adjust for that. Say Flight 93 was shot down at 8,000 feet at, say 600 MPH; what is the expected dispersal pattern? I don't think there's much doubt it would cover a much larger area. Perhaps Professor Jones would care to run the numbers for us?

Gravy

27th June 2006, 12:32 AM

So then we get to the debris scatter - which most CTers claim is "evidence" it was shot down (I'm still waiting to hear how being shot down proves CT). Apparantly the wreckage was spread over 8 square miles.

Even without disputing this statistic (and there seems to be good grounds to dispute the 8 sq mi figure)... just bear in mind *this* statistic.
.
Oh, this is easy to dispute, though. The CT contention is not that debris was spread over 8 square miles, but that debris was found 8 miles away from the crash scene. What they NEVER tell you is what that debris consisted of. It was a couple of pieces of paper. That's all. Investigators say the paper was carried in the breeze after being blasted a few hundred feet in the air, as we can see in the "mushroom cloud" photo.

Notice that you'll never see a CT get specific about that. They bring it up all the time, and it's important to challenge them on it.

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 01:01 AM

So I finally registered at the LC forum to discuss this "debunk" of Gravy.

Unfortunately, I now don't seem to be able to access any of the threads that I could clearly view before I registered!

Is there some reason they are preventing me from viewing certain threads?

Perhaps I should not have used the same name as here, but I didn't really want to be an UndercoverNinja. I figure I have nothing to hide, as I've really not been very vocal in the discussions so far.

Still, it's irritating that when I finally decide to jump in over there, I can't.

Did anyone else have this problem?

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 01:35 AM

I think you must be still waiting for approval. For some reason, before you register, and after you're approved you can see everything, but while you're waiting for approval, you can't.

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 02:00 AM

Hmmm. Great. I'll probably have lost interest by the time I get approved.

I've been looking at all this pod/missile/flash stuff (OK, not all) and wondering what exactly is the problem. They show lots of pictures that appear to have a "pod" of some kind, but it looks remarkably identical to the shape of the engine and is located in a place that (I think) would either not fit under the plane when it was on the runway, or at least would interfere with the landing gear.
In some of the views, it seems to me it could be a combination of reflected sunlight and shadow from an engine, but in others that doesn't seem to be possible.
I've been reading most of the threads here over the last few months, posting very occasionally. But, I seem to have missed the discussion of the "pod" etc. Does anyone have a link to where this was discussed? Was there an answer to the cause of the famous *Flash*?

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 02:02 AM

Of course, this is all based on me having an "open mind". The whole idea seems like total lunacy, but I'm still curious about the pictures.

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 02:07 AM

Hmmm, as usual, I've eventually turned up information on my own about the pod - actually just an odd structure to the airplane where the wing attaches. Lots of photos (more clear than 9/11 ones) show it.

So, that's cleared up. Now I'm looking for info on the flash...

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 02:09 AM

I seem to be turning this thread into my own monologue. Sorry.
Was it going anywhere?

Is it really a bad sign that I'm talking to myself so much here?

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 02:10 AM

Is it really a bad sign that I'm talking to myself so much here?
Only when you start to answer...

gumboot

27th June 2006, 02:23 AM

Heh...

The "flash" could have a lot of explanations... one is that an aircraft is main aluminium, and when it hits a solid object and high speed the force of compression at that impact vapourises the alimunium into aluminium oxide, accompanied by a bright flash of light.

A second less exciting explanation is it's simply a change in the reflective properties of the building's windows and aluminium cladding as they disintegrate under the force of the impact.

The "flash" is really nothing more than a very tiny very localised point of brighter light. Certainly any sort of explosion would be expected to be much brighter/larger.

-Andrew

chipmunk stew

27th June 2006, 02:50 AM

Oh, you guys will like this. You know how Webfairy and Gerard think that that out-of-focus, compression-artifacted still from the Jules Naudet video shows a "blob" (or, as Webfairy calls it, a "Whatzit") flying toward the North Tower? Well, some other woo-woo -- who is on a CIA drug-running conspiracy list with Webfairy -- took the still, blew it up big, sent it through a bunch of edge-detecting Photoshop filters, and spotted a bunch of evil faces in it (http://www.wiolawapress.com/signature.htm) that are the signature of the Reptoid aliens who are probably really at fault.I love this line:
next is the photo enlarged, solarized & invert with finding edges, with expanding the color range....red to blue end.....to gain as much data as possibleIs this guy for real?

gumboot

27th June 2006, 03:06 AM

I love this line:
Is this guy for real?[/SIZE]

It's not their fault. They have watched years and years of police dramas and spy films in which people "enhance" video. No one has told them that video shows you everything it has to offer on first go. You can't "enhance" it to get more out of it.

-Andrew

EDT: :eek: I just looked at that site... surely the person who made it is joking right? I mean... "man with a military style haircut"???

Harlequin

27th June 2006, 03:40 AM

I've just been going through this guy's exhaustive analysis of the Pentagon crash site and explanations of how everything has been faked. I especially like his idea that it is not incompetent conspirators that make these "obvious" photoshop mistakes, but rather must be "whistleblowers" bravely risking their lives by leaving red flags for us all to catch. This explains why the conspirators are smart enough to pull it all off, but dumb enough to be caught by a bunch of googlers.

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

The fact that he also contests JFK and the moon landing are surely indications that he does not understand what perspective does to a photo.
Mostly all of his analysis boils down to using pictures from different people taken of the same thing from different angles/locations and finding inconsistencies. Of course, some things are obviously more visible from some locations than others, but he doesn't quite mention that. If you've read much about the lunar-lunatics analysis of moon landing photos, this will all be strangely familiar...

Belz...

27th June 2006, 04:09 AM

Belz...

27th June 2006, 04:16 AM

gumboot

27th June 2006, 04:18 AM

Erm someone tell me...

How well does aluminium respond to magnets?

-Andrew

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 04:21 AM

Erm someone tell me...

How well does aluminium respond to magnets?

-Andrew

About as well as a CT does to logic.

chipmunk stew

27th June 2006, 04:22 AM

It's not their fault. They have watched years and years of police dramas and spy films in which people "enhance" video. No one has told them that video shows you everything it has to offer on first go. You can't "enhance" it to get more out of it.

-Andrew

EDT: :eek: I just looked at that site... surely the person who made it is joking right? I mean... "man with a military style haircut"???This stupid device (always carried out by some wise-cracking kid with gel'd hair) completely kills movies and shows for me. It ruined both CSI and 24. The worst example, though, and I forget the movie, was when the still capture was not only "enhanced", but the sooper seekrit technology the Gubmint was using actually allowed them to ROTATE AROUND THE OBJECT TO GET A CLEARER VIEW.

Ducky

27th June 2006, 04:25 AM

This stupid device (always carried out by some wise-cracking kid with gel'd hair) completely kills movies and shows for me. It ruined both CSI and 24. The worst example, though, and I forget the movie, was when the still capture was not only "enhanced", but the sooper seekrit technology the Gubmint was using actually allowed them to ROTATE AROUND THE OBJECT TO GET A CLEARER VIEW.

Yeah that ruined "Enemy of the State" as well. MOST of that movie's technology was nicely plausible, but ffs the "image enhancement" scene where they discover the bag changed shape... Oh that made me change the channel.

Belz...

27th June 2006, 04:32 AM

gumboot

27th June 2006, 04:33 AM

So. So. Lame.

It probably originated from older shows or whatever where they have LIVE CAMERAS and could remotely zoom them into a particular subject.

Some foooooool just decided you could do it with recorded footage too...

As for the rotate thing...

BLUGH.

-Andrew

Belz...

27th June 2006, 04:34 AM

Yeah that ruined "Enemy of the State" as well. MOST of that movie's technology was nicely plausible, but ffs the "image enhancement" scene where they discover the bag changed shape... Oh that made me change the channel.

Serves to show that most hollywood writers have no idea how things work.

Oh well... at least it's entertaining.

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 05:05 AM

Oh my. I didn't realise the CT crowd were claiming that WTC 6 was bombed as well.

MarkyX

27th June 2006, 06:17 AM

chipmunk stew

27th June 2006, 06:35 AM

I'm THAT kid :(Don't worry, I like that kid. Just not in that cliche role.

CurtC

27th June 2006, 06:53 AM

Yeah that ruined "Enemy of the State" as well. MOST of that movie's technology was nicely plausible, but ffs the "image enhancement" scene where they discover the bag changed shape... Oh that made me change the channel.
The only time I've ever watched the CSI tv show was an episode where there was a murder behind a person who took a snapshot with a digital camera. They enhanced the reflection off the eyes of the subjects in the photo, and saw the murderer behind the photographer.

I haven't bothered watching it again.

dubfan

27th June 2006, 07:08 AM

gumboot

27th June 2006, 07:14 AM

Oh my. I didn't realise the CT crowd were claiming that WTC 6 was bombed as well.

Is that the one that they claim has a "bomb crater" in it?

-Andrew

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 07:31 AM

Is that the one that they claim has a "bomb crater" in it?

-Andrew
That's the one, the bomb crater (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gz_aerial_wtc6.jpg) full of debris from WTC 1.

And the reason the buildings either side of WTC 7 didn't fall was because they weren't owned by Larry Silverstein.

Despite the fact that the plotters were so clever to get all the explosives up in the buildings, and crash planes into them, they suddenly became stupid when they didn't think that it would look suspicious just blowing up WTC 7 in between two other buildings.

60hzxtl

27th June 2006, 08:20 AM

I've been looking at all this pod/missile/flash stuff (OK, not all) and wondering what exactly is the problem. They show lots of pictures that appear to have a "pod" of some kind, but it looks remarkably identical to the shape of the engine and is located in a place that (I think) would either not fit under the plane when it was on the runway, or at least would interfere with the landing gear.
In some of the views, it seems to me it could be a combination of reflected sunlight and shadow from an engine, but in others that doesn't seem to be possible.

Pesky Mr. Sun, always rising in the east in the morning! Making long shadows! Pesky Mr. Sun!

Mancman

27th June 2006, 08:35 AM

Oh my. I didn't realise the CT crowd were claiming that WTC 6 was bombed as well.

Oh yeah, they detonated a huge bomb inside WTC6, even though the 1300ft skyscraper across the street was primed with explosives that would cause it to rain thousands of tons of steel all over it anyway. Why did they blow a huge hole in it? Ermm......look at the size of that crater!

Seriously though, the WTC6 'bombing' is one of the most poorly constructed 'theories' and is usually spewed out only by the nuttiest of 9/11 nuts, but fun to debunk anyhow.

And of course, the planes had massive bombs strapped to their underbellies. And fired a missile as they crashed. Even though the towers were rigged with explosives anyway. Logic? Who needs it!

gumboot

27th June 2006, 08:40 AM

Despite the fact that the plotters were so clever to get all the explosives up in the buildings, and crash planes into them, they suddenly became stupid when they didn't think that it would look suspicious just blowing up WTC 7 in between two other buildings.

No, no, you're not up with the play. They intended to blow them all up, but brave whistleblowers within the conspiracy foiled their plot, allowing only WTC7 to be blown up, as a clear signal to truth seekers everywhere that something was afoot.

:p It's elementary, dear Watson.

-Andrew

Kiwiwriter

27th June 2006, 08:59 AM

So now they put giant magnets in the WTC to attract the planes.

Well, then, the conspiracy must have been done by school teachers and administrators, because elementary schoolteachers and administrators are obsessed with and by magnets. That and Permanent Record Cards.

Maybe the reason WTC7 was whacked was to destroy all the Permanent Record Cards in the Board of Education, so they could rewrite the records to create lies about New York schoolchildren who went through the system and became conspiracy theorists! Boy, wouldn't their lives go to heck if their 8th grade English grades were changed! :D

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 09:20 AM

No, no, you're not up with the play. They intended to blow them all up, but brave whistleblowers within the conspiracy foiled their plot, allowing only WTC7 to be blown up, as a clear signal to truth seekers everywhere that something was afoot.

:p It's elementary, dear Watson.

-Andrew

Hey, I just know what I read in my weekly Government Shill newsletter.

JamesB

27th June 2006, 09:31 AM

One error in LC that I didn't catch but that was pointed out to me by a German guy recently is that Hanjour didn't overfly the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. He was at that altitude at abour 40 miles out. He was at about 2,200 feet when he made he wide turn, according to ATC.

Do you have a source for that? I was wondering about that point. Might make a good topic for a post.

MarkyX

27th June 2006, 09:41 AM

Did something out of sheer boredom.

A Challenge for those who believe Stephen Harper faked the plot (http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/rant.htm)

I wonder how the Loosers would respond.

chipmunk stew

27th June 2006, 09:48 AM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0

dissonance

27th June 2006, 09:49 AM

Let me stress that the planes/missiles are optional. They could have fitted some sort of "plane magnet" in WTC1 and WTC2 as well, thus ensuring the exact point of impact, however no planes would have been the easiest plan as far as success rate goes and there is photographic evidence to suggest that the planes have been added to the pictures electronically and there are plenty of people here who follow the no planes option as a result.

I can't believe you guys are making fun of them for thinking that there were giant magnets in the WTC. Giant magnets would be stupid. Clearly a 'plane magnet' is something entirely different from a regular magnet. A plane magnet only attracts planes, duh.

JamesB

27th June 2006, 09:56 AM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0

That is pretty good, almost as good as his "There are little people living in my television bit". I am surprised he hasn't been banned yet.

dubfan

27th June 2006, 10:08 AM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0

Thanks Stew. I'm only the vessel.

My pride and joy:

Memorex is owned by the President's brother, Marvin Bush.

tacodaemon

27th June 2006, 10:46 AM

I can't believe you guys are making fun of them for thinking that there were giant magnets in the WTC. Giant magnets would be stupid. Clearly a 'plane magnet' is something entirely different from a regular magnet. A plane magnet only attracts planes, duh.

I think they watched too many of those superhero cartoons in which the mad scientist villain constructs a giant magnet that attracts ALL THE GOLD IN THE WORLD! (Which, come to think of it, would keep them from having to have the line of dump trucks that was supposedly found under the collapsed buildings.)

Mancman

27th June 2006, 10:50 AM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0

And yet, none of the CTists appear to be able to grasp what dubfan is getting at.

Hardly surprising though.

Brainster

27th June 2006, 10:51 AM

Farhad Manjoo, who did a terrific takedown of RFK Jr's claim that Ohio was stolen from John Kerry in the 2004 election, grapples with the Loosers and Truthers (http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index.html). Note: You have to watch a brief ad to read the story.

He links to Gravy's debunking, which is a big deal. If the media start linking Loose Change and the debunking together, LC will become another Hitler's Diaries. About the only negative is that Manjoo semi-buys into the CD theory of WTC7, which really doesn't make a good conspiracy theory on its own.

tacodaemon

27th June 2006, 10:52 AM

EDT: :eek: I just looked at that site... surely the person who made it is joking right? I mean... "man with a military style haircut"???

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out whether she (I think it's a woman named Barbara running the site) believes that she's actually seeing the Whatzit's pilot, gun, and so on, or whether she thinks she is seeing the... I dunno, the "spectral auras" of those things, or some such nonsense.

The site's front page (http://www.wiolawapress.com) is a whole world of crazy. She apparently runs every news photo through her Photoshop filter treatment and thinks if it creates an X on someone's nose, that means they're a Reptoid. Even though she's mostly enhancing the grain and compression artifacts in the photos. (Check out the link about how CIA appointee Gen. Haydn [sic] "REALLY HAS COOTIES AND AN EVIL SNAKE NOSE".)

ob986s

27th June 2006, 11:01 AM

Thanks Stew. I'm only the vessel.

My pride and joy:

I have to say Dub

your work over there today has been brilliant.

Thanks for pointing it out Stew

aggle-rithm

27th June 2006, 11:08 AM

I have to say Dub

your work over there today has been brilliant.

Thanks for pointing it out Stew

Too bad it was wasted on a bunch of mental midgets who cant wrap their tiny, misshapen brains around the concept of parody...

aggle-rithm

27th June 2006, 11:09 AM

The only time I've ever watched the CSI tv show was an episode where there was a murder behind a person who took a snapshot with a digital camera. They enhanced the reflection off the eyes of the subjects in the photo, and saw the murderer behind the photographer.

I haven't bothered watching it again.

They lost me when they tracked down an e-mail sender's IP address, which looked something like this:

319.1.488.52

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th June 2006, 11:10 AM

They lost me when they tracked down an e-mail sender's IP address, which looked something like this:

319.1.488.52

Eh, prolly the same as H-Wood using 555 for phone numbers. Wanted an intentionally fake one. *shrug*

JamesB

27th June 2006, 11:13 AM

Too bad it was wasted on a bunch of mental midgets who cant wrap their tiny, misshapen brains around the concept of parody...

Now we are going to have to put up with a video on how the space shuttle was faked.

aggle-rithm

27th June 2006, 11:22 AM

Eh, prolly the same as H-Wood using 555 for phone numbers. Wanted an intentionally fake one. *shrug*

Yes, but at least 555 is a real number....what CSI Miami did is the equivalent of a telephone number like "%?$-@%#-09~!".

aggle-rithm

27th June 2006, 11:23 AM

Now we are going to have to put up with a video on how the space shuttle was faked.

I hope dubfan is prepared to be their reluctant Messiah. ;)

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 11:25 AM

Usually I don't care about bigfoots and ufo's because I don't feel it has any bearing on my life and the world.

But this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense really is damaging to everyone, it endangers our security and insults common sense. Thanks guys for making a stand. :)

CurtC

27th June 2006, 12:25 PM

No, no, you're not up with the play. They intended to blow them all up, but brave whistleblowers within the conspiracy foiled their plot, allowing only WTC7 to be blown up, as a clear signal to truth seekers everywhere that something was afoot.
No, no, no. UAL flight 93 was only trying to throw off our gathering defenses by heading straight towards Washington, DC, but at the last minute it was going to make a sharp left and crash into WTC7. When 93 crashed, they proceeded with the CD anyway. Really, I've read this at the LC Forum.

karim

27th June 2006, 12:32 PM

tacodaemon

27th June 2006, 12:34 PM

No, no, no. UAL flight 93 was only trying to throw off our gathering defenses by heading straight towards Washington, DC, but at the last minute it was going to make a sharp left and crash into WTC7. When 93 crashed, they proceeded with the CD anyway. Really, I've read this at the LC Forum.
Obviously WTC7 was the secret New World Order headquarters where all those old grey-haired guys on "The X-Files" always met to plot their conspiracies.

dubfan

27th June 2006, 12:44 PM

Just noticed something odd...an old thread at the LC forums just got bumped up, but the latest post is still back-dated.

Anyway, it's pretty much a Gravy "origins" thread. For some of us folks who got here later (after all the fun), it's cool to see Gravy & Delphi_ote & Stew and others take on Roxdog and the rest of the LC crowd over....EXACTLY the things they're still arguing about.

If you ever wanted to know the how & why of Gravy's banning at the LC forum, this is your thread:

Check it out:

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

ktesibios

27th June 2006, 12:47 PM

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out whether she (I think it's a woman named Barbara running the site) believes that she's actually seeing the Whatzit's pilot, gun, and so on, or whether she thinks she is seeing the... I dunno, the "spectral auras" of those things, or some such nonsense.

The site's front page (http://www.wiolawapress.com) is a whole world of crazy. She apparently runs every news photo through her Photoshop filter treatment and thinks if it creates an X on someone's nose, that means they're a Reptoid. Even though she's mostly enhancing the grain and compression artifacts in the photos. (Check out the link about how CIA appointee Gen. Haydn [sic] "REALLY HAS COOTIES AND AN EVIL SNAKE NOSE".)

Wow, you mean you guys have never encountered Wio before?

If you browse through the forum over at GLP (http://www.godlikeproductions.com)

WARNING: extremely concentrated woo and site is now owned by an adware/spyware maker; approach only with protective clothing and a non-Microsoft browser!

You'll probably find at least one of her threads. Even the most black-belt woowoos there don't really take her seriously anymore.

pgwenthold

27th June 2006, 12:58 PM

Just saw this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392837&in_page_id=1770

Young people are becoming increasingly immature because they are staying on so long in higher education, new research has revealed.

Some students are left with minds which are effectively 'unfinished' because formal learning now extends well past physical maturity.

They remain in a 'child-like' state of learning, wanting to gain more knowledge and have new, exciting experiences.

But this means that they never effectively mature or reach mental adulthood as they delay taking on responsibilities such as getting married, working and having children.

They retain the behaviours and attitudes associated with youth such as not wanting or being able to take on responsibility, having short attention spans and sensation-and novelty-seeking.

For some reason, it made me think of Loosers.

JamesB

27th June 2006, 01:06 PM

Now I see why they banned him. This is my favorite on that thread.

Years ( actually decades ) ago when I was in the military I had a friend whose MOS ( Military Occupational Speciality ) was writing war games. He was not supposed to tell anyone, but he did tell me ( during some heavy partying - concience is a funny thing when exposed to drugs and alcohol ). Some of the scenerios he came up with were absolutely sickening..... and some DID result in deaths ( during "peacetime" ). That is all I will say about that..... due to National Security.... Yes, it has its place, but it can also be abused -- As IMHO it was on 9-11....... and still is today.

There is no "wargames" MOS in the Army. If there were, I would have signed up for it. This is what too much drugs and alcohol do to you.

JamesB

27th June 2006, 01:32 PM

May I ask those who are interested to check out my new film. It's sort of directed to CTs but might interest others too.

There is some video where some of the 911 hijackers appear.
Few quotes:
"... after consulting sincere scholars ...(mentions many names including Bin laden)... We found no solution than carrying out martyrdom operations."
-Ahmad Al-Haznawi (united 93)

"May Allah reward those who trained me on this path... I mention in particular the Mujahid leader Shaykh Usama bin Muhammed bin Laden"
-Abdul Aziz Alomari (American Airlines 11)

and so on.

For now this video is on google only for it's just the "first version". I would like to hear some feedback and comments, good or bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657479898431151510

That is pretty interesting Karim, do you mind if I post it on Screw Loose Change, or do you want to refine it first? It looked well done to me. Do you mind if I ask your background? I assume you speak Arabic?

Brainster

27th June 2006, 01:41 PM

May I ask those who are interested to check out my new film. It's sort of directed to CTs but might interest others too.

For now this video is on google only for it's just the "first version". I would like to hear some feedback and comments, good or bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657479898431151510

I watched the first ten minutes; my connection seems a little sluggish. But this is a tremendous job, from what I have seen. It's subtle but effective. The only things I would fix are a couple of typos; "For Your Consideration", and when you name a month (December, for example), it should be capitalized. But I love the way you establish who the people are in the confession video, and the juxtaposition of the video "last will and testaments" and the pictures of the hijackers is excellent. Great job, I will link it at the blog--errr, that is I'll let James link it since I stepped on his last post. ;)

Kent1

27th June 2006, 01:58 PM

I watched the first ten minutes; my connection seems a little sluggish. But this is a tremendous job, from what I have seen. It's subtle but effective. The only things I would fix are a couple of typos; "For Your Consideration", and when you name a month (December, for example), it should be capitalized. But I love the way you establish who the people are in the confession video, and the juxtaposition of the video "last will and testaments" and the pictures of the hijackers is excellent. Great job, I will link it at the blog--errr, that is I'll let James link it since I stepped on his last post. ;)
Excellent stuff karim. You have quite a bit of video. The most I've seen put together in one place. (Some I've never seen the full videos of)

Regnad Kcin

27th June 2006, 02:05 PM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0And yet, none of the CTists appear to be able to grasp what dubfan is getting at.

Hardly surprising though.Better still, even after dubfan's prize-worthy illustration is pointed out, back they go right into Wooville.

MarkyX

27th June 2006, 02:39 PM

May I ask those who are interested to check out my new film. It's sort of directed to CTs but might interest others too.

There is some video where some of the 911 hijackers appear.
Few quotes:
"... after consulting sincere scholars ...(mentions many names including Bin laden)... We found no solution than carrying out martyrdom operations."
-Ahmad Al-Haznawi (united 93)

"May Allah reward those who trained me on this path... I mention in particular the Mujahid leader Shaykh Usama bin Muhammed bin Laden"
-Abdul Aziz Alomari (American Airlines 11)

and so on.

For now this video is on google only for it's just the "first version". I would like to hear some feedback and comments, good or bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657479898431151510

Better job than I did. Can I link from my index site?

WildCat

27th June 2006, 02:44 PM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0
The astonishing thing is how the loosers don't get the joke (actually irony to illustrate a point), even after he admits it's a joke several times! Too many pulls on the bong makes for severe short-term memory loss I guess.

Apollyon

27th June 2006, 02:45 PM

There is no "wargames" MOS in the Army. If there were, I would have signed up for it. This is what too much drugs and alcohol do to you.
Naw. I've done copious amounts of drugs and alcohol over the years and have no inclination towards woo-dumb whatsoever.

My guess would be the 'baby dropped on the head one too many times' theory.

chran

27th June 2006, 02:49 PM

For now this video is on google only for it's just the "first version". I would like to hear some feedback and comments, good or bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657479898431151510 It's really a most excellent video. Thank you for that. How truly frightening to see the hijackers sitting and talking normally when you know what they did a few hours/days later.

Belz...

27th June 2006, 02:53 PM

Logic? Who needs it!

Don't you just HATE logic ? I mean, here you are, having your own private little fantasy about how the world works and how it all really makes sense and how you can take control of your pathetic life...

...and here comes that stupid logic to take it all away!

I'm going to hide under my bed, now.

Mr. Skinny

27th June 2006, 02:58 PM

I have friends that died... many friends lost jobs.. in the thousands (im in the airline business), some commited suicide because of losing those jobs and their lives.. i have friends that are ill... and more friends at war dropping bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan... they want to know WHY... i want to know WHY... and we want FACTS! Not possibility.. not theory.. and not hypothesis...

GET IT?
Wow! Some of his friends committed suicide because of losing their lives.

How sad for them.

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th June 2006, 03:01 PM

Wow! Some of his friends committed suicide because of losing their lives.

How sad for them.

I'm guessing he meant "livelihood" *shrug*

Mr. Skinny

27th June 2006, 03:08 PM

I'm guessing he meant "livelihood" *shrug*
Yeah, now that I look at it again, it's probably just something he typed too fast, AW.

I'll withdraw my last post in fairness to JohndoeX *shrug*

Stellafane

27th June 2006, 03:15 PM

The astonishing thing is how the loosers don't get the joke (actually irony to illustrate a point), even after he admits it's a joke several times! Too many pulls on the bong makes for severe short-term memory loss I guess.

I just read the whole thread, and all I can say is that I'm amazed that people this paralyzingly stupid could tie their own shoes, never mind actually operate a computer. I used to think the CT'ers who posted here, especially ChildlikeEmpress and SBrown, were some of the dumbest posters I've ever seen on an Internet forum. But compared to these guys, CE is at least average, and SBrown (preversely enough) could actually be considered "smart" by these low standards. The over/under for the average CT'er IQ can't be 90, can it? What a bunch of maroons...

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th June 2006, 03:18 PM

I just read the whole thread, and all I can say is that I'm amazed that people this paralyzingly stupid could tie their own shoes, never mind actually operate a computer. I used to think the CT'ers who posted here, especially ChildlikeEmpress and SBrown, were some of the dumbest posters I've ever seen on an Internet forum. But compared to these guys, CE is at least average, and SBrown (preversely enough) could actually be considered "smart" by these low standards. The over/under for the average CT'er IQ can't be 90, can it? What a bunch of maroons...

You've never read the Off-topic section of the World of Warcraft forums, have you?

Belz...

27th June 2006, 03:21 PM

Don't miss dubfan's excellent parody over on the LC forum. When he really starts getting into it, it's spot on.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6997&st=0

Are these people representative of the level of inteligence over there ? I mean, did NO ONE actually get dub's point ??

Dubfan... you definitely are getting a spot on my soon-to-be-made (hopefully) pantheon of skeptic gods!

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 03:27 PM

Belz...

27th June 2006, 03:32 PM

You've never read the Off-topic section of the World of Warcraft forums, have you?

Oh, PLEASE give us some juicy examples.

Class

27th June 2006, 03:38 PM

What do the Loosers think of the video Karim posted? I would love to see them try to explain it.

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 04:03 PM

I was particularly interpelled by the part of Karim’s film where one of the hijackers is describing the four cases where Jihad becomes an individual obligation:

first: If the enemy invades any Muslim Land
second: When the two countries confront eatch other
third: If any Muslims is captured by the infidels
fourth: If the ruler commands it, going out to ight is compulsory.

This only further shows that the attack on America was a clear provocation, because all of these "cases" happened after 9/11, and because of 9/11.

It's also appalling to hear OBL accuse America of hating Muslims because it reacted promptly and harshly after the attacks of 9/11. As if Al Quaeda and the Taliban would have responded to diplomacy, as if their attack wasn't cruel enough, as if they had any right to kill 3 000 innocent people to begin with. These fanatics really see the world in a convoluted and up-side-down way.

JamesB

27th June 2006, 04:17 PM

What do the Loosers think of the video Karim posted? I would love to see them try to explain it.

The same way they explain everything else, "it was faked". We have a guy who posts regularly (too regularly for my tastes) who claims Al Qaeda itself is a made up Zionist plot. So are suicide bombers. Oh, and we gave Saddam his Scud missiles and armed the mujahadeen with M-16s, I especially liked that one.

kookbreaker

27th June 2006, 04:36 PM

It would seem that there is a bit of an unraveling. One of the members of Sf911T, brumsen, who is active on the bautforum, recently resigned from Sf911T after being suspended by the group's tyrant, Fetzer.

The announcement was made on the bautforum: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42548&page=6

He stated he was uncertain as to what caused his suspension, comments to Fetzer or setting up a message board to comment on the Scholars 'journal'.
I would likely say the latter as much criticism of the 'journal's' articles has been made on that forum.

Gravy

27th June 2006, 04:44 PM

Having a discussion on the ST911 journal forum with a guy who doesn't think the column in the first photo below was cut with a torch. This issue keeps rearing its ugly head, so I thought I'd post some other photos from the WTC cleanup of similar columns that were cut with oxy-acetylene torches. I encouraged him to contact one of the ironworkers' union locals if he still has doubts.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790444fc1fe0f45c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d88e3d5.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d8cb822.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d9086e7.jpg

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 04:48 PM

JamesB

27th June 2006, 04:52 PM

MarkyX

27th June 2006, 04:53 PM

Again Karim, your contribution is stunning!

It's chilling to see some of the highjackers in the same room as Bin Laden and his top croonies. I don't see how anyone can doubt that these guys are Al Quaida with your footage.

You definately have a keen sense of cinematic flow and rythm. But maybe it needs some more commentary on your part, wich might help understand the structure a little better, where the film is supposed to lead to. But overall I found it very impressive.

I kind of disagree with you there. Instead of adding some bias commentary like Loose Change or Michael Moore, we get the real meat into the matter. This is not what the author of the document is saying; this is what THEY are saying, with their own words and actions.

Although I'll admit that there is some points (such as the first video with the WTC in the background) was a bit too long. But it does sound a powerful message about the background and organization behind the attacks. This is something you will not see in a CT or the MSM. This is something that anyone who is either against or with the War on Iraq should take a look at.

Gravy

27th June 2006, 04:55 PM

May I ask those who are interested to check out my new film. It's sort of directed to CTs but might interest others too.
-Abdul Aziz Alomari (American Airlines 11)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657479898431151510

Well done, Karim. Very interesting. JamesB, I'm curious to see NesNyc's reaction. Will he claim it was all faked?

Gravy

27th June 2006, 05:05 PM

You have been suspended already? I haven't yet. I am expecting it moment after pointing out he was lying about PNAC.

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=5&mforum=911studies

Remember, these papers were "peer reviewed" before they were published.

To add to gravy's post, the professor admitted to me in an e-mail:
Yes it is possible that you could make the angle cut like that and get the appearance observed. However why would you waste all that expensive procedure at an angle? It would be much cheaper to cut the column horizontally.

But of course he then stated the exact opposite in the forum.
His comment sort of makes the assumption that these ironworkers were working with ideal jobsite conditions. The reality was often more like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790444fc18b8d552.jpg
To suggest that a column cut at an angle suggests foul play is quite strange.

Johnny Pixels

27th June 2006, 05:06 PM

You have been suspended already? I haven't yet. I am expecting it moment after pointing out he was lying about PNAC.

Sorry I meant I'd been suspended from the loose change forum.

JamesB

27th June 2006, 05:08 PM

I was trying to get an answer to how thermite cuts through vertical columns and doesn't just run straight down the side, with the help of this :http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/1114/untitled4dv1.jpg

Expert diagram. Except I've just got suspended for a month.

I asked the professor repeatedly what type of thermite device would be used to make a cut like this, he just kept on making vague comments about some nameless "patented" device. Then he finally said "thermite is nothing strange or new look it up on google" Which not only doesn't answer the question, but was insulting because I specifically told him I had experience in the use of thermite with military grenades. Which is probably more experience then he does.

To answer your question, which of course you know can not be answered, no way in hell. I suppose you could theoretically make a "belt" of thermite that went clear around the beam, but it would not make a flat cut. The outside part would melt first and drip down the side, it would end up looking like a pyramid. Thermite is extremely volatile and messy, it would not create anything near that neat looking. Check out this video for example.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 05:10 PM

I kind of disagree with you there. Instead of adding some bias commentary like Loose Change or Michael Moore, we get the real meat into the matter. This is not what the author of the document is saying; this is what THEY are saying, with their own words and actions.

You're perfectly right. I wasn't suggesting an "audio" commentary, it wouldn't be appropriate for Karim's style (the absence of voice-over), wich I think is one of his best qualities. His style reminds me of Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana". But maybe some other way to focus our attention on what we are seeing would help clarify a bit. :)

JamesB

27th June 2006, 05:13 PM

His comment sort of makes the assumption that these ironworkers were working with ideal jobsite conditions. The reality was often more like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790444fc18b8d552.jpg
To suggest that a column cut at an angle suggests foul play is quite strange.

Yeah, my response to him, which he did not like at all, was:

Maybe they couldn’t get into the right position to take it straight on? Occam’s razor here, which is easier to explain? A complicated international conspiracy involving the placing of some strange new demolition device that nobody has ever seen? Or some union worker on overtime not caring how much acetylene he wasted?

Pardalis

27th June 2006, 05:14 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a1a9d8cb822.jpg
[/CENTER]

This picture is particularly revealing, where did you get it Gravy?

Gravy

27th June 2006, 05:50 PM

This picture is particularly revealing, where did you get it Gravy?
From my iPhoto library, of course! :)

Okay, I didn't have them properly labeled, so I Googled "ground zero excavation" and found the site right away. Thanks, Google!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzexcav1.html

Montoya

27th June 2006, 05:52 PM

Yeah, my response to him, which he did not like at all, was:

Maybe they couldn’t get into the right position to take it straight on? Occam’s razor here, which is easier to explain? A complicated international conspiracy involving the placing of some strange new demolition device that nobody has ever seen? Or some union worker on overtime not caring how much acetylene he wasted?

My thought was that perhaps they cut it at an angle to have some control over which direction the column was going to fall over... just like people cut a tree.

dubfan

27th June 2006, 05:52 PM

May I ask those who are interested to check out my new film. It's sort of directed to CTs but might interest others too.

There is some video where some of the 911 hijackers appear.
Few quotes:
"... after consulting sincere scholars ...(mentions many names including Bin laden)... We found no solution than carrying out martyrdom operations."
-Ahmad Al-Haznawi (united 93)

"May Allah reward those who trained me on this path... I mention in particular the Mujahid leader Shaykh Usama bin Muhammed bin Laden"
-Abdul Aziz Alomari (American Airlines 11)

and so on.

For now this video is on google only for it's just the "first version". I would like to hear some feedback and comments, good or bad.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657479898431151510

Karim,

This is a very powerful piece of work, and it speaks for itself.

About half-way thru the film I found myself wondering what the lyrics to the music in the background meant. It was a very powerful device to see the translations, and then to hear one of the hijackers reading them back during his Last Will & Testament.

Thank you again.