PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change - Part III

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

MarkyX
30th June 2006, 09:41 AM
Yet, Mr. Avery, wouldn't it be sweet, sweet satisfaction to really stick it to Mr. Roberts, counter all his points, and put him in his place, what with all the evidence at your disposal?

Oh, wait...

Best part is he fell for it.

P.S http://www.myspace.com/avery_dylan :P

CptColumbo
30th June 2006, 09:44 AM
Isn't Myspace.com supposed to be a site for kids? He's trying to debate with teenagers, and their nosy parents.

dubfan
30th June 2006, 09:50 AM
Well, for sake of argument (and to reduce the amount of C-4 needed), let's assume lightweight concrete without rebar (other options are dense concrete or reinforced concrete). Our formula is
P=R3KC
Where P is pounds of TNT, R is the thickness, K is the material factor, and C the tamping factor.
So, let's assume a minimal C-4 needed. We'll use K=.88 for lightweight concrete less than .3 meters thick, C=1.0 assuming charges placed in the center of the floor thickness, and R=2 inches (about .166 feet).

So we get
P=0.1663*0.88*1.0 = 0.004025 lbs. per charge. With C-4's ReF of 1.34, that means 0.003004 lbs. per charge. Not much, but we're asssuming a charge placed every 4 inches (to waste less blast above and below the floor). So, that number is how much C-4 is needed to destroy concrete in a 2 inch radius around the charge. Again, fo rsake of argument, let's assume the radius is cubical, and each of these charges will pulverize 0.0046296 ft3 of concrete.

Now, we have 32,000 cubic meters of concrete, approximately, which gives us 1,130,060 ft3, roughly. Divide that by how much our charges destroy and you get 244,094,522 charges, which equates to 733,260 lbs of C-4, or about 365 tons.

Let's get a bit more reasonable and assume a charge placed every 15 feet in a grid. Our K value now becomes 0.27 for concrete over 2.1 meters. C stays the same, and R is 7.5:
P=7.53*.27*1.0 = 113.90625 lbs of TNT or 85 lbs. of C-4 per charge (rounded down slightly). Each of these charges will take out a 15' by 15' by 4 inch area of flooring (floor is only 4 inches thick), or 75 cubic feet. So, using our figure of 1,130,060 ft3 of concrete, that gives us 15067 charges, or 1,280,695 lbs. of C-4, or 640 tons. As you increse the charge size, the amount required goes up.

Thanks dub, azazal. Sounds like concrete over the steel, so we can effectively ignore the steel. Actually, you could figure that the steel would add to the destructive force in my second scenario (larger charges) by reflecting some of the blast back into the concrete, But it's only going to be a reduction of 30% to 40% at best.

Oh, and just an aside, my figures for Christophera's reinforced concrete core did NOT include cutting the reinforcement, just the concrete.

Hm. 640 tons. Ought to take 4 guys about 10 trips each, huh?

JamesB
30th June 2006, 09:57 AM
I hear Karl Schwarz is an expert on that stuff.

Patmos Nanotechnology is the leading researcher in the area. They have over 1000 PhDs who have filed over 400 patents on nanothermate alone.

I wonder if they managed to fill out the default entries on their webpage template yet?

Kent1
30th June 2006, 10:28 AM
Patmos Nanotechnology is the leading researcher in the area. They have over 1000 PhDs who have filed over 400 patents on nanothermate alone.

I wonder if they managed to fill out the default entries on their webpage template yet?

Here's Fetzer's Open Letter to the Editor, to the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_29Jun2006.html

dubfan
30th June 2006, 10:34 AM
But of course he simply omitted the obvious clarification of what I meant as well as my observation that we were preparing a formal reply to the "911myths" site for publication on st911.org. Which we will do.

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I can't wait for Fetzer's "oh isht" moment when he actually gets around to reading that site.

Mike W, are you worried? The "scholars" are preparing a formal reply.

pgwenthold
30th June 2006, 10:39 AM
Here's Fetzer's Open Letter to the Editor, to the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_29Jun2006.html

For those who don't want to read this, allow me to summarize:

"Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh, they were mean to me."

I love the part about how

The buildings exploded from the top down, as is
visible to anyone paying attention

I have to say, it may or may not be visible, because to be honest, I don't even know what it means to "explode from the top down."

azazal
30th June 2006, 10:39 AM
Hm. 640 tons. Ought to take 4 guys about 10 trips each, huh?

Actually a quick question for Huntsman, the 325 or 640 tons of C4 number is just the explosives correct? You did not add in the weight of detonators, det-cord, ect, right?

JamesB
30th June 2006, 10:41 AM
Here's Fetzer's Open Letter to the Editor, to the Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_29Jun2006.html

Can he not realize the ridiculous irony of this statement?

What we must all understand is that even the most carefully and
painstakingly argued position, such as Steve Jones' studies and
David Ray Griffin's books, can be subjected to ridicule relatively
effortlessly by employing the fallacy of special pleading and only
citing evidence favorable to your side.

Hellbound
30th June 2006, 10:48 AM
Actually a quick question for Huntsman, the 325 or 640 tons of C4 number is just the explosives correct? You did not add in the weight of detonators, det-cord, ect, right?

That is absolutely correct. You'd need one detonator per charge (perhaps two per using the 85 lb. charges).

Det cord would add some additional tons, possibly as much as the C-4 itself. Even MDI would be heavy, but significantly lighter than det cord. I'm not familiar with electrical systems as much, but that would likely be your lightest weight.

azazal
30th June 2006, 11:01 AM
That is absolutely correct. You'd need one detonator per charge (perhaps two per using the 85 lb. charges).

Det cord would add some additional tons, possibly as much as the C-4 itself. Even MDI would be heavy, but significantly lighter than det cord. I'm not familiar with electrical systems as much, but that would likely be your lightest weight.

Excellent, thought so. So guessing that at a minimum, the CD of the towers would take 500 (direct access to the support columns) to 1000(general area of support columns) tons of material per tower is not unreasonable.

You know, I really wish some one would sit down with one of the CD company's reps and map out what would be needed to drop the towers with CD, just to show what a massive undertaking it would be.

Kent1
30th June 2006, 11:01 AM
Can he not realize the ridiculous irony of this statement?
With the amount of stupid things Fetzer says you could almost apply it to others.

1. to make astonishing/overwhelming stupid statements
2. lacking normal intelligence beyond belief
3. implies lack of intelligence or incapacity for perceiving, learning etc.

Here is angry Fetzer at the education forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7192&st=0&gopid=66189&

Brainster
30th June 2006, 11:56 AM
With the amount of stupid things Fetzer says you could almost apply it to others.

1. to make astonishing/overwhelming stupid statements
2. lacking normal intelligence beyond belief
3. implies lack of intelligence or incapacity for perceiving, learning etc.

Here is angry Fetzer at the education forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7192&st=0&gopid=66189&

Heheh. I love this bit:

In presenting any complex argument on a controversial subject, it is easy to make someone look silly: just give their conclusions and ignore all their premises!

This is something that I've definitely noticed about the Truthers; they always want you to focus on minutiae and not on the big picture, because the big picture's absurd whereas you can believe for a second that puffs of smoke are actually squibs from explosives.

That's why I still believe that the most effective way of defeating the Truthers is to reveal their nutty conclusions right off the bat: The planes were forced to land somewhere, other planes were flown into the WTC buildings, a missile was fired at the Pentagon, and they just dumped some trash in a ditch in Shanksville and called it Flight 93. The passengers were all killed in a NASA building in Cleveland, except for Barbara Olson who's counterfeiting Lira in Germany. Oh, yes, and the Joooos did it.

MikeW
30th June 2006, 12:32 PM
Mike W, are you worried? The "scholars" are preparing a formal reply.
Yes, I noticed that. Don't want to say more about it in public, but let's just say I'm not worried. At all.

dubfan
30th June 2006, 12:44 PM
I think we've just verb-ified the word "Fetzer".

Fet'-zer. v. To employ the fallacy of special pleading, citing only that evidence which is favorable to one's side.

Belz...
30th June 2006, 12:48 PM
All this is all the more perplexing considering so many components of the alternate 9/11 theories are so far beyond rationality. And considering the official story is simple, sufficiently detailed, and fairly dripping with common sense, it's all the more...mystifying.

Well you see, Reg, I think it's precisely those qualities that make the official story LESS convincing to these people. It's TOO simple, TOO conclusive.

I think people have been fed too many intrigue stories in the last few decades.

Belz...
30th June 2006, 12:58 PM
Best part is he fell for it.

P.S http://www.myspace.com/avery_dylan :P

Not enough "I mean,"'s

Gravy
30th June 2006, 12:59 PM
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8930/40933238shanni2033007qr.jpg
Johnny, I hardly knew ye.

Gravy
30th June 2006, 01:02 PM
Don't know.

Greening says "lightweight concrete", but the context of his analysis is the energy required to pulverize the concrete. I don't think he considered the presence or absence of rebar in his analysis.

Ought to be an easy enough thing to find out though, or maybe on of our WTC construction gurus here might know offhand...

Gravy?
Lightweight concrete without rebar, mostly 4" thick, on corrugated steel.

Gravy
30th June 2006, 01:17 PM
Just got this in email right now.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=89557162

Best. Profile. Picture. Ever.
Very funny. And I see that Sheen's ex is now "Denise Roberts." Come on over, dahlin'. I'll take good careaya, not like that glue-sniffin', gun-totin', wife-smackin', vaccination-hatin', Chiropracter-goin', houseplant-throwin', sucky sitcom-starrin', Johnson self-picture-takin', 9/11 conspiralatin', gamblin' money-losin', prostitute-addictionated chucksheen.

Blackwell
30th June 2006, 01:18 PM
Geez - just finished listening to the Fetzer and Colmes clip. Have to take a few deep, calming breaths now.
So Fetzer claims that the passengers wouldn't get away with using an Airfone (apparently, they had one terrorist stationed at each row to keep an eye on each passenger!) but claims that he'd stand up, take his luggage out of the overhead compartment, advance on the terrorist, and proceed to beat him to death with his suitcase? What an absolute jackass.

(Although the mental image of Fetzer with a suitcase brings to mind the old Samsonite commercial, featuring the gorilla throwing around the suitcase...)

Doubt
30th June 2006, 01:19 PM
Well, even in military shaped charges are preferred, and can be improvised in the field. It's easier to carry C-4, though, and make the shaped charges you need, rather than try to carry a variety of pre-shaped charges, any of which may or may not be useful for whatever you find.

Also, much of my training involves breeching, cratering, or clearing, and you want the wide area effect to blow out your path (for breeching or clearing) or to blow out your crater.

I could give some steel-cutting figures, if you're interested. It'd take a bit more research on my part.

A couple of notes.

The advantage of pre-shaped charges is that you get a glass liner which becomes a penetrator that is right for the amount of explosive you are using. If you make your own, you either have no penetrator or have to make do with what you have. Glass wine bottles are supposed to be good for that since the bottom of the bottle often has the cone shape for the inside of the charge.

If you want to use a shaped charge on steel, standard shaped charges are not the way to go. You want an armor penetrating type of charge that is normally lined with copper instead of glass. But those are normally attached to missiles or tank shells.

Hunstman, you already did the harder math for the breaching charge. Steel cutting math is a bit easier if somebody provides the cross section of the steel to be cut. P = 3/8*A is easier to work out than (R^3)*K*C.

However, the commercial blasting companies use liner shaped charges, so the stuff we have in our 5-34 manuals does not really apply to a real controlled demo. But you would still get numbers that are closer to reality than what the CT’rs BS ideas.

Gravy
30th June 2006, 01:32 PM
Geez - just finished listening to the Fetzer and Colmes clip. Have to take a few deep, calming breaths now.
So Fetzer claims that the passengers wouldn't get away with using an Airfone (apparently, they had one terrorist stationed at each row to keep an eye on each passenger!) but claims that he'd stand up, take his luggage out of the overhead compartment, advance on the terrorist, and proceed to beat him to death with his suitcase? What an absolute jackass.

(Although the mental image of Fetzer with a suitcase brings to mind the old Samsonite commercial, featuring the gorilla throwing around the suitcase...)
These flaming idjits never seem to remember that the terrorists said they had BOMBS on board, and they had already KILLED people. Goddamn these flaming idjits. Goddamn them. Ah, now I'm wishing I wasn't an atheist.

XXX
30th June 2006, 01:44 PM
Hey, got a question. Was Mark Bingham the only guy who identified himself using his first and last name on those phone calls? Does anyone know where I can find a tape of the calls or a transcript online?

Sword_Of_Truth
30th June 2006, 01:47 PM
JohndoeX is an incredibly dense mass of idiocy that has collapsed under the weight of his own cretinism and turned into a giant black hole of stupid from wich no sign of intellect can possibly escape.

I just felt I had to let that out.

pgwenthold
30th June 2006, 01:52 PM
These flaming idjits never seem to remember that the terrorists said they had BOMBS on board, and they had already KILLED people.

And notice that by the time people realized that these _weren't_ normal hijackings, they DID respond in revolt, overtaking the hijackers.

The irony is, of course, that the morons deny that this happened, too.

DavidJames
30th June 2006, 02:03 PM
JohndoeX is an incredibly dense mass of idiocy that has collapsed under the weight of his own cretinism and turned into a giant black hole of stupid from wich no sign of intellect can possibly escape.

I just felt I had to let that out.fun to watch though :D

Sword_Of_Truth
30th June 2006, 02:53 PM
fun to watch though :D

Frustrating if you let yourself get too emotionally involved with it.

Especially if you're debating with someone like J.Doe who has no values. The tinfoil turbans all hate the federal government and all it's agencies yet this guy will openly run into the arms of FEMA for protection when the mean old skeptics bring up things that make him feel bad.

Most tinfoilers when you say "a major government agency screwed up", they will agree with you on that. J.Doe has no consistency.

Brainster
30th June 2006, 02:59 PM
Hey, got a question. Was Mark Bingham the only guy who identified himself using his first and last name on those phone calls? Does anyone know where I can find a tape of the calls or a transcript online?

The only phone conversation that I know of that was taped was Betty Ong's from Flight 11 (and even that was only part of the conversation); Dylan has a segment from it in the latest version of LC2. Don't forget, the passengers were mostly calling residences that would be unlikely to have phone-recording equipment.

I would suspect that several of the callers identified themselves with first and last names--Todd Beamer to the Verizon supervisor, any of the callers who called 9-11, etc., although of course the point about Bingham was that he said it to his mom. Of course, to most of us that just indicates he was rattled by the events unfolding on Flight 93 and distracted.

Actually now that I think about it, the 9-11 calls were probably also taped, although I don't believe they've been released publicly.

Palimpsest
30th June 2006, 03:00 PM
P.S http://www.myspace.com/avery_dylan :P

How sad is it that he only has 2 friends, and (at least) one of them is a JREFer?

XXX
30th June 2006, 03:06 PM
The only phone conversation that I know of that was taped was Betty Ong's from Flight 11 (and even that was only part of the conversation); Dylan has a segment from it in the latest version of LC2. Don't forget, the passengers were mostly calling residences that would be unlikely to have phone-recording equipment.

I would suspect that several of the callers identified themselves with first and last names--Todd Beamer to the Verizon supervisor, any of the callers who called 9-11, etc., although of course the point about Bingham was that he said it to his mom. Of course, to most of us that just indicates he was rattled by the events unfolding on Flight 93 and distracted.

Actually now that I think about it, the 9-11 calls were probably also taped, although I don't believe they've been released publicly.

Thanks, I've been looking and I can't find them either (no transcript, no tapes). There's one guy, a real moron, who rants about 9/11 from time to time. He's now talking about the "govenrment released tapes from the hijacked planes" and how every tape he heard the person making the call introduced themselves with their first and last names.

Of course, if the tapes have never been released, then he's pulling this out of his ass. Wouldn't be the first time.

Ducky
30th June 2006, 03:06 PM
I have a feeling that myspace account is a spoof.

Skibum
30th June 2006, 03:07 PM
How sad is it that he only has 2 friends, and (at least) one of them is a JREFer?

That Tom guy seems to end up as everyones friend on myspace.

Brainster
30th June 2006, 03:20 PM
These flaming idjits never seem to remember that the terrorists said they had BOMBS on board, and they had already KILLED people. Goddamn these flaming idjits. Goddamn them. Ah, now I'm wishing I wasn't an atheist.

Not to mention that all recommendations prior to 9-11 emphasized cooperating with the hijackers so as not to escalate the situation. It was only because Flight 93 was delayed so long that the passengers knew their fate and thus were willing to fight back rather than just sit there and die.

I'm coming to realize that Fetzer's the worst of this lot. He knows how to debate conspiracy theory. The part with him ducking questions about passengers was quite eye-opening; no matter how many times Colmes asked him about the passengers he quickly got onto another topic. He's good at steering the debate in the direction where he's got some cards to play. Yeah, they're all jokers, but usually the hosts aren't equipped to catch his lies about flight manifests and tail numbers and Barbara Olson's counterfeit Lira.

steve s
30th June 2006, 04:01 PM
Very funny. And I see that Sheen's ex is now "Denise Roberts." Come on over, dahlin'. I'll take good careaya, not like that glue-sniffin', gun-totin', wife-smackin', vaccination-hatin', Chiropracter-goin', houseplant-throwin', sucky sitcom-starrin', Johnson self-picture-takin', 9/11 conspiralatin', gamblin' money-losin', prostitute-addictionated chucksheen.

You forgot the best one: Gay-porn-watchin'.

Steve S.

Mr. Skinny
30th June 2006, 04:05 PM
Geez - just finished listening to the Fetzer and Colmes clip. Have to take a few deep, calming breaths now.
So Fetzer claims that the passengers wouldn't get away with using an Airfone (apparently, they had one terrorist stationed at each row to keep an eye on each passenger!) but claims that he'd stand up, take his luggage out of the overhead compartment, advance on the terrorist, and proceed to beat him to death with his suitcase? What an absolute jackass.

(Although the mental image of Fetzer with a suitcase brings to mind the old Samsonite commercial, featuring the gorilla throwing around the suitcase...)

I think perhaps you are thinking of Claus Larsen.

ETA: Bolding mine.

XXX
30th June 2006, 04:08 PM
OK, I'm now very sure that no tapes of those cell phone calls have ever been released, so it's time to take this guy to task for yet another lie.

I did find a small tidbit of info though. Since we have been talking about Fetzer, I have twice heard him say now that the cockpit voice recorder would not have been able to hear the sounds outside the cockpit...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/12/terror/main1491489.shtml

Despite the detail — and because the cockpit ceiling microphone can pick up sounds from the passenger cabin, particularly if the cockpit door is open — there were multiple interpretations of the final seconds.

JamesB
30th June 2006, 04:27 PM
OK, I'm now very sure that no tapes of those cell phone calls have ever been released, so it's time to take this guy to task for yet another lie.

I did find a small tidbit of info though. Since we have been talking about Fetzer, I have twice heard him say now that the cockpit voice recorder would not have been able to hear the sounds outside the cockpit...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/12/terror/main1491489.shtml

Despite the detail — and because the cockpit ceiling microphone can pick up sounds from the passenger cabin, particularly if the cockpit door is open — there were multiple interpretations of the final seconds.

The sounds by the passengers is not on the transcript interestingly enough. I assume if they can be heard, probably not very well through the door. I thought this was a stupid point by Fetzer. Perhaps he noticed when he was in the radio studio, they put you in this special room, because if people are outside screaming and banging on the door, you can hear them.

Sword_Of_Truth
30th June 2006, 04:27 PM
Very funny. And I see that Sheen's ex is now "Denise Roberts." Come on over, dahlin'. I'll take good careaya, not like that glue-sniffin', gun-totin', wife-smackin', vaccination-hatin', Chiropracter-goin', houseplant-throwin', sucky sitcom-starrin', Johnson self-picture-takin', 9/11 conspiralatin', gamblin' money-losin', prostitute-addictionated chucksheen.

I should point out that I am filling a pair of blank shotgun shells with soap flakes so I can wash my mind out as soon as I'm done typing this post.

It's true that Charlie Sheen has performed an out-of-control demolition on his life and his credibility. But it is also true that people going through divorces will load up thier filings with all manner of accusations not all of wich ultimately turn out to be true. The things we know that he's done are quite sufficient on thier own to effectively impeach this particular witness.

Presumption of guilt on every single accusation to come from what will likely be hollywoods messiest divorce of the decade strikes me as the same kind of thinking as assuming that Silverstien actually meant to demolish WTC7 instead of remove the firefighting/rescue operation from the danger zone around the building.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go do something to take my mind off the urge to "pull it" to the special edition "Tammy & The T-Rex" DVD. :p

Brainster
30th June 2006, 04:51 PM
OK, I'm now very sure that no tapes of those cell phone calls have ever been released, so it's time to take this guy to task for yet another lie.

I did find a small tidbit of info though. Since we have been talking about Fetzer, I have twice heard him say now that the cockpit voice recorder would not have been able to hear the sounds outside the cockpit...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/12/terror/main1491489.shtml

Despite the detail — and because the cockpit ceiling microphone can pick up sounds from the passenger cabin, particularly if the cockpit door is open — there were multiple interpretations of the final seconds.

If you read the transcript of the CFR that is included with that article, you'll see that there's no overheard discussion of using the beverage cart as a battering ram, which is what Fetzer claims the CFR revealed. There is discussion in the CBS article:

Then 30 seconds past 9:59 a.m., an enormous crash: metal against metal, glass breaking, plastic cracking. The Sept. 11 Commission theorized passengers used a drink cart to ram the cockpit door. More unintelligible shouting.

So it's just another lie from Fetzer. This guy is shameless.

XXX
30th June 2006, 05:05 PM
OK, just want to make sure before I start blasting this guy...no tapes of phone calls from the planes, other than Betty Ong's, have ever been released, right? I can't find any.

dubfan
30th June 2006, 05:18 PM
OK, just want to make sure before I start blasting this guy...no tapes of phone calls from the planes, other than Betty Ong's, have ever been released, right? I can't find any.

Just as a further safety check: I'm not aware of any BUT, it would seem to me that any of the calls placed by Flight Attendants to the Ops Centers of the respective airlines would've been taped. If I'm not mistaken there were other FAs besides Betty who called.

I would check the 911 Commission Report (chapter 1) and look at the footnotes.

gumboot
30th June 2006, 05:42 PM
Another thing to consider with these [rule8]s' claims about what they'd do in such a situation...

We know that on UA93, for example, all the hijackers were in the cockpit - none in the passenger cabin.

In addition, on Betty Ong's flight they didn't even KNOW the plane was hijacked - all they knew was people had been stabbed. This again suggests the hijackers are in the cockpit.

If the hijackers were in the cockpit on every flight, obviously there is nothing to stop the passengers rallying around, gathering up credit cards galore, and making airphone calls to their hearts' content.

These [rule8]'s just don't think, at all... they become practically orgasmic (can I say that?) over every single little minute detail that seems "out of place" but meanwhile ignore a tonne of other details that connect everything together.

-Andrew

EDT. Sorry... the CTs used to annoy me and amuse me. Now they're started to make me angry...*breathe*

Brainster
30th June 2006, 06:20 PM
OK, just want to make sure before I start blasting this guy...no tapes of phone calls from the planes, other than Betty Ong's, have ever been released, right? I can't find any.

Why not put it on him--ask him whose conversations he's heard? The CBS News article does mention that one of the flight attendants on UA 93 left a message on her husband's answering machine which was also played in court; it's possible that's out there as well, although I would give you very high odds against her identifying herself with both her first and last name.

This is a problem for the Truthers, this continual desire to make the story a little better. It's not enough that Mark Bingham got flustered and identified himself to his mom with his full name; everybody had to do it (preferrably in an eerily robotic sounding voice). It's not enough that the steel came down in sections 30 feet long (yes, even that's nonsense), but Dylan's gotta claim it was no more than "a couple feet long". It's not enough that the cable spools in front of the Pentagon showed relatively minor damage; they were "untouched". There are at least a dozen more examples of this irresistable urge to exaggerate.

XXX
30th June 2006, 06:27 PM
I did that Brainster, decided first to ask him where he heard these tapes and where I could here them too. Then when he can;t produce them I'll blast him.

Remember, he said "government released tapes" of the hijacked plane's phone calls, and that "every tape he heard" had the person making the call using their first and last names. I think he is just putting together a bad post based on his remembering the whole Mark Bingham thing, and also has assumed that there actually are tapes out there that have been listened to.

gumboot
30th June 2006, 06:29 PM
Just a question for everyone...this is mere musing...

How much is Hollywood to blame?

Seems to me, every film involving any sort of government agent is the same - the one lone good FBI/CIA/NSA/whatever agent, struggling for the truth against the corrupt and evil organisation they work for.

Hell, even in films about FIREMEN they're corrupt! (Think Backdraft...).

Is it possible Hollywood has encoded the younger generation with a subconscious belief that ALL government agencies, all police, all authority, are evil and corrupt?

-Andrew

Kent1
30th June 2006, 06:46 PM
"In addition, on Betty Ong's flight they didn't even KNOW the plane was hijacked - all they knew was people had been stabbed. This again suggests the hijackers are in the cockpit."

I think she knew. I don't know how many of the passangers knew.
Here is an audio of her phone call from the plane
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

XXX
30th June 2006, 06:51 PM
Oh, this is fun. First he tells me that the tapes are not hard to track down, then when pressed further he says that he has "heard excerpts on numerous radio talk shows when the govt "approved" tapes were released months ago ...".

EDIT : LOL, I'm now being told to "do my homework". He hasn't pointed out a single one of these tapes yet.

Brainster
30th June 2006, 07:12 PM
Just a question for everyone...this is mere musing...

How much is Hollywood to blame?

Seems to me, every film involving any sort of government agent is the same - the one lone good FBI/CIA/NSA/whatever agent, struggling for the truth against the corrupt and evil organisation they work for.

Hell, even in films about FIREMEN they're corrupt! (Think Backdraft...).

Is it possible Hollywood has encoded the younger generation with a subconscious belief that ALL government agencies, all police, all authority, are evil and corrupt?

-Andrew

There's a lot of truth to that analysis of Hollywood (and books).

Also note that in Three Days of the Condor, The Bourne Identity, The Parallax View, JFK, Conspiracy Theory... you name it, the paranoid nutters are always right. About the only one I can think of who's a harmless crank is the Dan Ackroyd character in Sneakers.

JamesB
30th June 2006, 07:55 PM
There's a lot of truth to that analysis of Hollywood (and books).

Also note that in Three Days of the Condor, The Bourne Identity, The Parallax View, JFK, Conspiracy Theory... you name it, the paranoid nutters are always right. About the only one I can think of who's a harmless crank is the Dan Ackroyd character in Sneakers.

I love that character.

Now what are you saying, the NSA killed Kennedy?
No, they shot him but they didn't kill him. He's still alive.

Brainster
30th June 2006, 08:43 PM
I love that character.

Now what are you saying, the NSA killed Kennedy?
No, they shot him but they didn't kill him. He's still alive.

Cattle mutilations are up 150% this year. ;)

dubfan
30th June 2006, 08:51 PM
There's a lot of truth to that analysis of Hollywood (and books).

Also note that in Three Days of the Condor, The Bourne Identity, The Parallax View, JFK, Conspiracy Theory... you name it, the paranoid nutters are always right. About the only one I can think of who's a harmless crank is the Dan Ackroyd character in Sneakers.

I disagree that Hollywood's to blame. I think Hollywood's just a reflection. I think the real-life events of Watergate & Vietnam (possibly the perception more so than the reality in the case of VN) did more to undermine trust in the government than anything. Hollywood just sort of picked up the ball and ran with it.

That narrative (the Vietnam/Watergate story) is still playing out today in a lot of different venues. CTs is just one of them.

I don't want this to get political, so that's all I'll say.

gumboot
30th June 2006, 09:00 PM
Good point dubfan...

That was my other consideration, that Hollywood was a reflection. So it could be a bit of both perhaps? (as option three) Real events create spark, which Hollywood jumps on (makes great stories). It becomes a staple of Hollywood, to the point that it influences the world view of those of, for example, my generation.

I mean, let's face it, people like Dylan Avery get their reality from TV. They show over and over that their command of other world events throughout history (what was that other country Hitler invaded...?) is pitiful. And they don't seem to be an exception. Most of my friends - in this same age group - are just the same. They base their sense of reality on what they see on TV (and no I'm not talking the news). The only "reality" based stabiliser of their world view (aside from my own struggles) is their parents, who would fit into the "believe government is corrupt due to real world events" category described by dubfan.

-Andrew

dubfan
30th June 2006, 09:33 PM
Good point dubfan...

That was my other consideration, that Hollywood was a reflection. So it could be a bit of both perhaps? (as option three) Real events create spark, which Hollywood jumps on (makes great stories). It becomes a staple of Hollywood, to the point that it influences the world view of those of, for example, my generation.

I mean, let's face it, people like Dylan Avery get their reality from TV. They show over and over that their command of other world events throughout history (what was that other country Hitler invaded...?) is pitiful. And they don't seem to be an exception. Most of my friends - in this same age group - are just the same. They base their sense of reality on what they see on TV (and no I'm not talking the news). The only "reality" based stabiliser of their world view (aside from my own struggles) is their parents, who would fit into the "believe government is corrupt due to real world events" category described by dubfan.

-Andrew

I think each generation has defining events that shape & color the worldview for people of that generation. For a lot of people who came of age in the 60s and 70s, it was Vietnam & Watergate.

I'm a little younger than that -- I came of age during Carter/Reagan. The Iranian hostage crisis and Desert One and Klinghoffer and Stethem and Beirut colored my view of American government and foreign policy more than Watergate & Vietnam did.

People of Dylan's age don't even remember the Cold War. They don't remember Reagan, weren't even alive for Carter. The Iranian hostage crisis means nothing to them. Desert One, they've never heard of. Same for Klinghoffer & Stethem. The defining event of their era so far is the disputed 2000 election.

Gravy
30th June 2006, 10:15 PM
The defining event of their era so far is the disputed 2000 election.
(Psst! 9/11.)

realitybites
30th June 2006, 10:20 PM
(Psst! 9/11.)
Well of course 9/11. But if you look back.... 9/11 would never have happened if Bush didn't steal the election.

Ergo, the 2000 election is what defines this generation.

gumboot
30th June 2006, 10:22 PM
I think he meant "defining event" in terms of government = evil corruption.

But people of my age, by 2000, already had their basic world view established. (And unlike events like Desert One and "Nam", I don't think the 2000 election thing had as big an impact on non-American youths, yet if anything their attitude is even stronger)

P.S. The Iranian hostage crises means something to me, and I have heard of Desert One... :D (Yeah, I know I'm not typical of my age group in that regard...)

-Andrew

dubfan
30th June 2006, 10:23 PM
(Psst! 9/11.)

Yes, but 9/11 viewed in what way? They view it thru the lens of what they perceive was a stolen election. Poke at that scab long enough with any CTer and that's what you'll find.

gumboot
30th June 2006, 10:25 PM
But if you look back.... 9/11 would never have happened if Bush didn't steal the election.

Of course it would have... it is very well established that both parties are part of the evil illuminati/neocon/jooo plot... and the CIA/NSA/DoD/FBI/FAA/NORAD/CNN/PBS/ABC/XYZ would still be there, regardless of who was in power.

:p

-Andrew

JamesB
30th June 2006, 10:47 PM
According to Paul Krugman it will be Enron...

Gravy
30th June 2006, 11:04 PM
Well of course 9/11. But if you look back.... 9/11 would never have happened if Bush didn't steal the election.

Ergo, the 2000 election is what defines this generation.

Is that your view, or are you "playing the voice of disaffected youth?"
Or are you being sarcastic. I actually don't know! :)

Eta: anyone else feel free to pipe up with an opinion. I'm an old fart and don't know what this generation feels are their defining experiences. Is the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened without Bush a common one?

Ducky
30th June 2006, 11:18 PM
Honestly Gravy, I don't know. I'm not a kid anymore.

My defining moments have little to do with a common defining moment of those my age. Though some memorable ones are the Challenger explosion, Columbia breaking up on re-entry, 9/11, Oaklahoma City bombing, just to name a few.

Of course I don't see a vast conspiracy of those events, nor do I think the presidents in power at the time of those events have much to do with them.

Gravy
30th June 2006, 11:20 PM
According to Paul Krugman it will be Enron...
Interesting idea. In the 80's we had such financial mayhem as the Savings & Loan crisis, insider-trading scandals that shut down huge brokerages, and a massive stock market crash in 1987. In that crash the market lost a third of its value: comparable to the beginning of the 1929 crash. BUT, it recovered to its previous level in something like 2 1/2 years, whereas the market took almost 40 years to reach its 1928 high again.

Eta: Oh, there was a point to this. Aren't we all here, on this thread, to fight against rampant speculation? ;)
And that is my socioeconomic commentary for the evening. I have to go print up some flyers to hand out at Ground Zero tomorrow.

gumboot
30th June 2006, 11:42 PM
Oh, there was a point to this. Aren't we all here, on this thread, to fight against rampant speculation? ;)

Yes but sometimes it can be fun... :p

-Andrew

JamesB
30th June 2006, 11:52 PM
I am not saying that I agree with him, personally I think he is an idiot. Both Brainster and I are actually mentioned in a book coming out about bloggers for some posts we did on him. Just a little shameless self promotion. :cool:

tacodaemon
1st July 2006, 04:38 AM
OK, just want to make sure before I start blasting this guy...no tapes of phone calls from the planes, other than Betty Ong's, have ever been released, right? I can't find any.
That Discovery Channel movie about Flight 93 (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/flight/producer/producer.html) incorporates audio from the tapes. I've seen it, and it uses actors resembling Bingham, Beamer, Lyles, et al and has them lip-synch along with the tapes at various points during the movie.

WildCat
1st July 2006, 06:15 AM
Hey! Gordon Ross himself (author of one of the scholar's journal articles (http://www.journalof911studies.com/)) has shown up to defend his work in the 911 studies forum. View it here (http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?p=232&mforum=911studies#232).

MarkyX
1st July 2006, 06:24 AM
Just uploaded a new version of the "Usual Suspects" on YouTube. The full video will be on MySpace soon.

Brainster
1st July 2006, 06:39 AM
I am not saying that I agree with him, personally I think he is an idiot. Both Brainster and I are actually mentioned in a book coming out about bloggers for some posts we did on him. Just a little shameless self promotion. :cool:

Yep, oddly enough on the famous "stolen" election of 2004.

In a lot of ways, I feel like I'm paying the price now for my youthful belief in conspiracies. I was born in 1955, so the defining event for me was the Kennedy assassination, and I believed in the conspiracy. Not so much that it became an obsession, but I could rattle off the problems with the magic bullet and connect the dots ("Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission, and now he's being effectively appointed to the presidency!"), all that sort of nonsense. To give myself a little credit, I did follow the Jim Garrison case and realized pretty quickly that he was a complete bozo.

Like Jim Fetzer, watching JFK changed me completely, but in the opposite way. I was flabbergasted watching Stone try to make a martyr out of nutbar Garrison and walked out of the theatre about halfway through. After that I noticed that no "factoid" was ever refuted permanently; the CTers would retire it for a couple years and then resurrect it a few years later when the evidence defeating it was largely forgotten.

I can buy that a heck of a lot of CTers started out as 2000 Sore Loserman types, although obviously that doesn't explain Morgan Reynolds or (apparently) Stephen Jones. As I've said many times, most CTers start with the conclusion (Bush/Cheney was responsible for 9-11) and work backwards from there. Obviously those who opposed Bush in 2000 would be prone to reaching the conclusion quickest.

There are paranoid types on both sides, on the far wings who start the ball rolling on the theories against the other side, and that at some point the "evidence" they've gathered becomes compelling enough that some of the paranoid types on the other side hop on board (although disputes develop as to who was "really responsible"). Remember, CT evidence is similar on both sides; it relies on quote mining, focusing on the eyewitnesses whose account disputes the OT, and "connecting the dots". I would imagine that just as there are "conservatives" among the "Truthers" there were probably some "liberals" muttering about Vincent Foster.

bob_kark
1st July 2006, 06:59 AM
Is that your view, or are you "playing the voice of disaffected youth?"
Or are you being sarcastic. I actually don't know! :)

Eta: anyone else feel free to pipe up with an opinion. I'm an old fart and don't know what this generation feels are their defining experiences. Is the idea that 9/11 wouldn't have happened without Bush a common one?

I think it simply comes down to the fact that Bush has been compared to Hitler so many times, it starts to stick with some people. So it goes from our country being caught off guard by a terrorist attack --> Bush being caught off guard by a terrorist attack --> Bush being unprepared for a terrorist attact ---> Bush allowing the terrorists to attack us --> Bush creating a terrorist attack because...*

I know some people who fully believe that if Al Gore was in office 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Gore would have taken terrorism seriously, etc... Unfortunately, they fail to realize that there was no way to stop 9/11 from occuring without a major security restructuring, which was extremely unlikely to happen no matter who was in office.

*
1.Collect Underpants
2.?
3.Profit!

dubfan
1st July 2006, 06:59 AM
Hey! Gordon Ross himself (author of one of the scholar's journal articles (http://www.journalof911studies.com/)) has shown up to defend his work in the 911 studies forum. View it here (http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?p=232&mforum=911studies#232).

Wow. That response is nearly impenetrable to me. If I understand him, he's basically acknowledging one of my points (while ignoring the other, btw), but somehow the fact that the building mass fell thru more than 1 storey somehow *decreases* the potential energy available?

:eye-poppi

dubfan
1st July 2006, 07:07 AM
(Psst! 9/11.)

I thought about this some more Gravy and I think you're right. Well, I think we're both right.

I guess the defining event for that generation would be the whole zeitgeist that involves the disputed 2000 election, 9/11, the wars in Iraq & Afgahnistan, and all of the subsequent politics that arose out of all those events. You can't really separate them out and say *this* is the one thing. It just seems to me (this is just an impression I get) that to the averate 9/11 CT, history prior to the 2000 election is largely irrelevant or ignored or forgotten.

DavidJames
1st July 2006, 07:10 AM
There are paranoid types on both sides, on the far wings who start the ball rolling on the theories against the other side...I think a study of CTers would be a fascinating one to read. My opinion (humble of course :)) is CTers "think" differently, connect the dots differently, as you suggest, and that's the foundation for belief in CTs. While it often takes a political bent, I don't think it starts with a certain political bent.

I find a lot of the 9/11 CTers are also moon hoaxers believers, chem trail kooks, Waco Wacko's and OKC CTers. The last two are occurred during Clinton's years. Pure anecdotal, for sure.

Belz...
1st July 2006, 07:12 AM
There's a lot of truth to that analysis of Hollywood (and books).

Also note that in Three Days of the Condor, The Bourne Identity, The Parallax View, JFK, Conspiracy Theory... you name it, the paranoid nutters are always right. About the only one I can think of who's a harmless crank is the Dan Ackroyd character in Sneakers.

Well, to be fair, movie studios try to make stories as appealing as possible, and that means making the CTer right almost every time. After all, it wouldn't be very exciting if all movies turned out to be logical, and if CTs were always wrong...

Belz...
1st July 2006, 07:15 AM
I'm an old fart

...comparable to the beginning of the 1929 crash. BUT, it recovered to its previous level in something like 2 1/2 years, whereas the market took almost 40 years to reach its 1928 high again.

1929 ? Damn! You ARE old, Gravy! ;)

Stellafane
1st July 2006, 07:16 AM
I believe the defining moment of the second half of the 20th century was Yeltsin on the tank. The Soviet Union, the erstwhile Evil Empire bent on world domination (and seemingly capable of pulling it off) no longer had the power to stand up to one man. After that moment, the Western powers no longer had a well-defined opponent. Instead, our enemies became shadowy, ill-defined figures -- and to some, ourselves.

Shrinker
1st July 2006, 07:21 AM
Hey gang, hope I didn't miss a post that already announced this: DJRunaway has opened his own forum...

http://www.operation911freedom.co.nr/

Currently boasting 26 subforums, and 24 users. Why do they need another forum? Is it because the more thinly spread the information is, the more potent it becomes?

Belz...
1st July 2006, 07:25 AM
I believe the defining moment of the second half of the 20th century was Yeltsin on the tank. The Soviet Union, the erstwhile Evil Empire bent on world domination (and seemingly capable of pulling it off) no longer had the power to stand up to one man. After that moment, the Western powers no longer had a well-defined opponent. Instead, our enemies became shadowy, ill-defined figures -- and to some, ourselves.

That might very well be an important element to this.

Of course, CTs existed many decades ago, so it's really hard to tell.

Johnny Pixels
1st July 2006, 07:31 AM
I'd say that CTs were a kind of safety net. Like JFK and 9/11, the enemy is really an unknown force. Oswald was a lone nut, and sometimes it's hard to understand why he did it. Al Qaida acts on an agenda that is alien to the western world, it's hard to understand how they can harbour so much hatred that they'd kill themselves to hurt the west. The CT brings the enemy out of the shadows, making them a known entity and totally describes their motives. The government may be bigger and more powerful than either Oswald or Al Qaida, but they're out in the open and familiar, so the believer can tell themselves they understand why they would act that way, and turn an irrational act into a rational one. They talk themselves into believing the real enemy is the snake out in open, a snake they can keep an eye and one they they know, because they can't see or understand the snake in the grass and it scares them.

kookbreaker
1st July 2006, 07:37 AM
Hey gang, hope I didn't miss a post that already announced this: DJRunaway has opened his own forum...

http://www.operation911freedom.co.nr/

Currently boasting 26 subforums, and 24 users. Why do they need another forum? Is it because the more thinly spread the information is, the more potent it becomes?

26 Subforums!!! What the heck do they cover, I refuse to look, and will make my own fun:

Pentagon Grass Discuss the grass in front of the Pentagon here

Flight 93 Assembly rivets Discuss the rivets used to build Flight 93 here.

Poodles (experimental) Discuss the contraversial theory that Poodles, not Bush arranged for 9-11. SKEPTICS OF POODLES NOT ALLOWED.

kookbreaker
1st July 2006, 07:40 AM
OK, I looked, and what did I find under the rules for Skeptics in the SKeptics forum?

PS: DO NOT POST LOOSE CHANGE DEBUNKS ON THIS BOARD, TAKE THIS AS A WARNING!

Narf. Its OK to be skeptical, just don't do anything about it, and stop posting to my Panic Room! Wah!

bob_kark
1st July 2006, 07:43 AM
26 Subforums!!! What the heck do they cover, I refuse to look, and will make my own fun:

Pentagon Grass Discuss the grass in front of the Pentagon here

Flight 93 Assembly rivets Discuss the rivets used to build Flight 93 here.

Poodles (experimental) Discuss the contraversial theory that Poodles, not Bush arranged for 9-11. SKEPTICS OF POODLES NOT ALLOWED.

Live to Fight Another Day (or not) Discuss the debates you've fled from.

Pointless Profanity Our main forum.

Godwin's Revenge Discuss whether Hitler was evil enough to be compared to Bush.

Jews How can we stop them?

Shrinker
1st July 2006, 07:47 AM
OK, I looked, and what did I find under the rules for Skeptics in the SKeptics forum?

Narf. Its OK to be skeptical, just don't do anything about it, and stop posting to my Panic Room! Wah!

What a clown. If you want to criticise loose change then maybe you need to say it in his loose change subforum. That one doesn't seem to have any rules. If that fails then it looks like you first need to claim its disinfo and then post your comments in the disinfo forum.

dubfan
1st July 2006, 07:58 AM
Live to Fight Another Day (or not) Discuss the debates you've fled from.

Pointless Profanity Our main forum.

Godwin's Revenge Discuss whether Hitler was evil enough to be compared to Bush.

Jews How can we stop them?

Emoticons Discuss what smileys we should have.

Brainster
1st July 2006, 08:19 AM
I don't know when she left the comments on our blog, but I've pulled them out to the front page (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/april-gallop-speaks-on-this-blog.html). April was the woman mentioned in Loose Change (based on a book by Jim Marrs) as not believing that a plane hit the Pentagon. I think it's fair to say that April's not pleased with Marrs or our blog. My reading of her comments is that she's somewhere in the middle--not entirely sure a plane hit the Pentagon, and did not see airplane parts--but also angry at Jim Marrs for distorting her comment. I'd say more than anything else she's upset (and legitimately so) that she wasn't safe in what was supposed to be the most secure building in the world.

Dylan responds to her comment, basically offering to interview her.

Not my proudest moment blogging, certainly, but I'm not going to ignore firsthand information regardless of whether it helps my argument or not.

60hzxtl
1st July 2006, 08:27 AM
Hey gang, hope I didn't miss a post that already announced this: DJRunaway has opened his own forum...

http://www.operation911freedom.co.nr/

Currently boasting 26 subforums, and 24 users. Why do they need another forum? Is it because the more thinly spread the information is, the more potent it becomes?

I'm the KING of MY forum!

Mine mine mine!

Harlequin
1st July 2006, 08:37 AM
Wow, I can't wait to join and be part of the LegacyCru

Polaris
1st July 2006, 08:47 AM
I'm the KING of MY forum!

Mine mine mine!

I'm reminded of the two inch-tall Daffy Duck in the end of the Genie in the Lamp episode of Looney Tunes.

"Oh brudder, close sesame."

WildCat
1st July 2006, 08:50 AM
Wow. That response is nearly impenetrable to me. If I understand him, he's basically acknowledging one of my points (while ignoring the other, btw), but somehow the fact that the building mass fell thru more than 1 storey somehow *decreases* the potential energy available?

:eye-poppi
Yeah, me too. So many words, so little said. About all I can do is recomment he submit it to a proper engineering journal, and we all know that's not going to happen.

Hellbound
1st July 2006, 09:18 AM
A couple of notes.

The advantage of pre-shaped charges is that you get a glass liner which becomes a penetrator that is right for the amount of explosive you are using. If you make your own, you either have no penetrator or have to make do with what you have. Glass wine bottles are supposed to be good for that since the bottom of the bottle often has the cone shape for the inside of the charge.

If you want to use a shaped charge on steel, standard shaped charges are not the way to go. You want an armor penetrating type of charge that is normally lined with copper instead of glass. But those are normally attached to missiles or tank shells.

Hunstman, you already did the harder math for the breaching charge. Steel cutting math is a bit easier if somebody provides the cross section of the steel to be cut. P = 3/8*A is easier to work out than (R^3)*K*C.

However, the commercial blasting companies use liner shaped charges, so the stuff we have in our 5-34 manuals does not really apply to a real controlled demo. But you would still get numbers that are closer to reality than what the CT’rs BS ideas.

Yeah, I did some of the steel calculations in the discussion with Christophera. However, I believe I can access sources to determine how much would be needed for the linear shaped charges with copper penetrators. Not sure, but there's a few people I know that might have the information about how it's figured.

The reason for using the equatiosn for general charges was the argument about explosives "pulverizing the concrete", a situation that shaped charges would not be ideal for.

JamesB
1st July 2006, 09:55 AM
Yep, oddly enough on the famous "stolen" election of 2004.

In a lot of ways, I feel like I'm paying the price now for my youthful belief in conspiracies. I was born in 1955, so the defining event for me was the Kennedy assassination, and I believed in the conspiracy. Not so much that it became an obsession, but I could rattle off the problems with the magic bullet and connect the dots ("Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission, and now he's being effectively appointed to the presidency!"), all that sort of nonsense. To give myself a little credit, I did follow the Jim Garrison case and realized pretty quickly that he was a complete bozo.

Like Jim Fetzer, watching JFK changed me completely, but in the opposite way. I was flabbergasted watching Stone try to make a martyr out of nutbar Garrison and walked out of the theatre about halfway through. After that I noticed that no "factoid" was ever refuted permanently; the CTers would retire it for a couple years and then resurrect it a few years later when the evidence defeating it was largely forgotten.

I can buy that a heck of a lot of CTers started out as 2000 Sore Loserman types, although obviously that doesn't explain Morgan Reynolds or (apparently) Stephen Jones. As I've said many times, most CTers start with the conclusion (Bush/Cheney was responsible for 9-11) and work backwards from there. Obviously those who opposed Bush in 2000 would be prone to reaching the conclusion quickest.

There are paranoid types on both sides, on the far wings who start the ball rolling on the theories against the other side, and that at some point the "evidence" they've gathered becomes compelling enough that some of the paranoid types on the other side hop on board (although disputes develop as to who was "really responsible"). Remember, CT evidence is similar on both sides; it relies on quote mining, focusing on the eyewitnesses whose account disputes the OT, and "connecting the dots". I would imagine that just as there are "conservatives" among the "Truthers" there were probably some "liberals" muttering about Vincent Foster.

Actually my part was mostly on the 2000 election. Krugman mentioned both in his column. I concentrated mostly on the fact that contrary to Krugman's assertions his own newspaper reported that Gore only "might" have won under certain recount scenarios that Gore never even called for in the first place. Selective memory that would make a conspiracy theorist proud.

JamesB
1st July 2006, 11:50 AM
OK, getting us back on topic after my little self-promoting asise, the Loosers have now posted their LA preview of their "final cut" It is mostly news cliips and interviews. Thankfully that means you don't have to listen to Dylan drone on endlessly. It even includes interviews with both Fetzer and Alex Jones, who appears to be on crystal meth the entire time.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/07/back-to-city.html

Harlequin
1st July 2006, 12:00 PM
Unfortunately, DJLegacy2k5 says he has fixed the "Registration Glitch" that somehow allowed non-registered people to still create new threads.

I guess having someone start a thread called "Anyone banned yet?" in the Welcome to the Forum section was a little more than he could take...

Shrinker
1st July 2006, 12:23 PM
OK, getting us back on topic after my little self-promoting asise, the Loosers have now posted their LA preview of their "final cut" It is mostly news cliips and interviews. Thankfully that means you don't have to listen to Dylan drone on endlessly. It even includes interviews with both Fetzer and Alex Jones, who appears to be on crystal meth the entire time.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/07/back-to-city.html
Wow, this is DULL. I'm 12 minutes in. So far we've had a woman who most probably found two slow clocks and a guy with a slow wristwatch and therefore concluded that a bomb blew up the pentagon 5 minutes before the (no)plane arrived.

Shrinker's Viewers Guide: Skip the first 12 minutes.

This is shaping up to be the Phantom Menace of the Truth Movement.

XXX
1st July 2006, 12:38 PM
It even includes interviews with both Fetzer and Alex Jones, who appears to be on crystal meth the entire time.

You know what popped into my mind as I read that...

Tonight on E True Hollywood Stories....Alex Jones!

Alex Jones, reflecting on his past : "Yea, I was basically on crystal meth everyday at that point. I was ranting and raving at everything."

Don't miss it!

MarkyX
1st July 2006, 12:44 PM
HE IS STILL SAYING THE HIJACKERS ARE ALIVE?

Wow...just wow. How old is that clip anyways? We don't know of course, I wonder why.

EDIT: Is it possible if I can get the original ;)

JamesB
1st July 2006, 12:48 PM
Yeah it starts slow. The most interesting are Fetzer and Jones. The stupidest thing that stands out thus far is where Fetzer says the fires could not have gone about 500 degrees. Then he claims that the office fires in the WTC previously exceede 2000 degrees without the towers collapsing. Maybe he is confusing celsius and fahrenheit, but even so, why exactly does he think the fires would be that much cooler. Does jet fuel somehow act as a cooling agent for fires?

Anti_Hypeman
1st July 2006, 12:52 PM
I predict there will be no transcript posted for LCIII and the usage agreement will be altered to try and prevent a LCIII viewers guide. No I dont think he realizes that he cannot copyright news footage.

Shrinker
1st July 2006, 01:00 PM
I predict there will be no transcript posted for LCIII and the usage agreement will be altered to try and prevent a LCIII viewers guide. No I dont think he realizes that he cannot copyright news footage.
Well I'm halfway in, and I'll predict a very short Viewers' Guide this time around. So far we've had three 'experts', who back their claims up with nothing but their qualifications. It's so weak I can actually watch it without getting even slightly irritated.

Can you image watching this in a cinema? After 30 minutes there have been about a dozen cuts (not including cuts in the stock footage). It's sending my eyes to sleep.

Edit: Ah, it's just a 1 hour trailer for the real thing. Exceptionally dull. Well done, Dylan. Looking forward to the release.

Gravy
1st July 2006, 01:06 PM
Well, I didn't make it to Ground Zero today. Wound up helping a friend move who was shorthanded. I'll be out there next week.

I know JamesB is working on a Fetzer/Judy Wood interview transcript. Does anyone know if a Fetzer/Colmes transcript is in the works? If not, i'll do it this weekend (I still haven't llstened to it.)

JamesB
1st July 2006, 01:14 PM
Well, I didn't make it to Ground Zero today. Wound up helping a friend move who was shorthanded. I'll be out there next week.

I know JamesB is working on a Fetzer/Judy Wood interview transcript. Does anyone know if a Fetzer/Colmes transcript is in the works? If not, i'll do it this weekend (I still haven't llstened to it.)

I wasn't planning on an entire transcript. It is two hours long, minus the commercials. I don't know if I can listen to him that long. I have excerpted several parts of both interviews for the blog though.

60hzxtl
1st July 2006, 01:18 PM
Well, I didn't make it to Ground Zero today. Wound up helping a friend move who was shorthanded. I'll be out there next week.

I know JamesB is working on a Fetzer/Judy Wood interview transcript. Does anyone know if a Fetzer/Colmes transcript is in the works? If not, i'll do it this weekend (I still haven't llstened to it.)

Wow! are the CT'ers gonna be jealous! Gravy has a life! Gravy has friends! Gravy does normal things on a nice Saturday.

My hat remains off to you Gravy, and all your fine work.

ktesibios
1st July 2006, 01:27 PM
I think a study of CTers would be a fascinating one to read. My opinion (humble of course :)) is CTers "think" differently, connect the dots differently, as you suggest, and that's the foundation for belief in CTs. While it often takes a political bent, I don't think it starts with a certain political bent.

I find a lot of the 9/11 CTers are also moon hoaxers believers, chem trail kooks, Waco Wacko's and OKC CTers. The last two are occurred during Clinton's years. Pure anecdotal, for sure.

That doesn't just apply to CTers. Back in 1965 J. C. Furnas coined the term "syndromism", in his book The Life and Times of the Late Demon Rum to describe the tendency for adherents of the temperance movement to hold a particular extended set of opinions on unrelated subjects. I've seen the same sort of thing in leftish activist circles- getting it through some peoples' heads that my opinion about a labor issue was not predictive of my opinion about, say, Mumia Abu Jamal was an exercise in frustration- and much the same sort of clustering seems to be common on the rightish fringe as well.

As a species, we seem to have quite a knack for getting our beliefs in package deals or tie-in sales.

delphi_ote
1st July 2006, 01:42 PM
Well, I didn't make it to Ground Zero today. Wound up helping a friend move who was shorthanded. I'll be out there next week.

I know JamesB is working on a Fetzer/Judy Wood interview transcript. Does anyone know if a Fetzer/Colmes transcript is in the works? If not, i'll do it this weekend (I still haven't llstened to it.)
So a review on Judy Wood:

a) She claims she was in a coma for a really long time (6 years!)
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285

b) She's an assistant professor, not a full professor:
http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html
But this doesn't matter at all to the 9/11 "scholars":
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

c) Her research has nothing to do with structural engineering.
http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

d) She has a very poor grasp of basic kinematics.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

XXX
1st July 2006, 02:22 PM
BTW, just a quick but funny update about the guy I mentioned in another forum who claims he has heard several tapes of the phone calls from the hijacked planes. He got ridiculed and pressed further to produce these tapes, and he posted a transcript of Larry King with some of the relatives, using clips from the movie "United 93" to show what happened to them, and he tried to pass that off as a tape of the phone call from Mark Bingham, at the same time triumphantly telling me to F off. Hilarious.

JamesB
1st July 2006, 02:26 PM
So a review on Judy Wood:

a) She claims she was in a coma for a really long time (6 years!)
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=495285

b) She's an assistant professor, not a full professor:
http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html
But this doesn't matter at all to the 9/11 "scholars":
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

c) Her research has nothing to do with structural engineering.
http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

d) She has a very poor grasp of basic kinematics.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Being an assistant professor isn't that big of a deal, but I did a spreadsheet of the "scholars" for a blog post and found that many weren't even that. There were several "adjunct" professors, which essentially means part time lecturers without a teaching position. Many are "professor emeritus" which means retired, (Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds are some examples). One of the full members is a lab manager at BYU. Most don't list their teaching positions on the website, but if I had to guess, less than 1/2 half actually have tenured academic positions, and even then it is usually in something like philosophy or linguistics.

It wouldn't bother me so much if Jones is a physicist and Woods is a Mechanical Engineer, except there is absolutely nobody else in their organization with even even the remotest qualifications. They rant on about any topic, no matter how insane, and the rest just cheer "Excellent, excellent!"

Did you see Wood's ratings by her students? Vicious. 1.7 out of 4.

Judy Wood's Scorecard
No. of Ratings: 13
Average Easiness: 2.2
Average Clarity: 1.4
Hotness Total: 0
Overall Quality: 1.7

Hard to understand at times, and is kinda boring. Definetely get the hw solutions to follow so you can become professient and make sure your doing it right. Hw assignments are a pain in the ass. Due every class, and graded on correctness (get the solutions!). Tests aren't too bad though and grading is reasonable.

Does not need to be teaching.

She is an odd lady, to say the least. She is very good at what she does, but she can't always explain it well enough for students to understand. SHE TAKES FOR EVER TO GIVE EXAMS BACK!!!!! It took here 3 weeks to give an exam back once.

Like others said, she had good intentions and when she wasn't trying to convince us Bush blew up the WTC she was actually nice, but she wasn't a great teacher. Too many times she starts examples and doesn't finish them. And yes, she was in a coma for 6 years. How crazy is that.

She woke up from a coma and decided her calling was to become a professor. She did not really seem to know the material, and she was hopeless at trying to convey it to the student. She fails to be able to complete a thought if not a sentance. If it is possible at all, aviod her.

delphi_ote
1st July 2006, 03:02 PM
Being an assistant professor isn't that big of a deal, but I did a spreadsheet of the "scholars" for a blog post and found that many weren't even that.
The 911 scholars list her credentials as:
Judy Wood (FM)

Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, Materials Engineering Science,
Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University
which is not quite reality.

She also dresses up her cat for Halloween (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/YogiHalloween.html). She's just your standard nut looking for attention.

bob_kark
1st July 2006, 03:33 PM
The 911 scholars list her credentials as:

which is not quite reality.

She also dresses up her cat for Halloween (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/YogiHalloween.html). She's just your standard nut looking for attention.

Since when have CTers been aiming for reality? In fact, have the two ever met?

Brainster
1st July 2006, 05:49 PM
Well I'm halfway in, and I'll predict a very short Viewers' Guide this time around. So far we've had three 'experts', who back their claims up with nothing but their qualifications. It's so weak I can actually watch it without getting even slightly irritated.

Can you image watching this in a cinema? After 30 minutes there have been about a dozen cuts (not including cuts in the stock footage). It's sending my eyes to sleep.

Edit: Ah, it's just a 1 hour trailer for the real thing. Exceptionally dull. Well done, Dylan. Looking forward to the release.

Yeah, that's the smorgasbord thing. Love the interview with Sander Hicks; google him some afternoon when you're looking for a laugh. He's not quite as um, unique as Judy Wood (in a coma for six years?), but still at the far right end of the bell curve on nuttiness.

60hzxtl
1st July 2006, 05:50 PM
If Judy hadn't been in a coma for 6 years she WOULD be a full professor.

Brainster
1st July 2006, 05:52 PM
Well, I didn't make it to Ground Zero today. Wound up helping a friend move who was shorthanded. I'll be out there next week.

I know JamesB is working on a Fetzer/Judy Wood interview transcript. Does anyone know if a Fetzer/Colmes transcript is in the works? If not, i'll do it this weekend (I still haven't llstened to it.)

I've already done a fair amount of it--you want to start from say 25 minutes in and I'll stop there? I think the total is under 35 minutes, because Fetzer isn't around for the very ending of the show--Colmes does a five second thing like Hannity.

gumboot
1st July 2006, 06:29 PM
Yeah, that's the smorgasbord thing. Love the interview with Sander Hicks; google him some afternoon when you're looking for a laugh. He's not quite as um, unique as Judy Wood (in a coma for six years?), but still at the far right end of the bell curve on nuttiness.

My favourite statement...

"In Europe, for years, 9/11 was ONLY about the Pentagon attack. The World Trade Centre was a peripheral."

Uh huh.

Certainly respect for the victims shown there.

-Andrew

JamesB
1st July 2006, 06:31 PM
My favourite statement...

"In Europe, for years, 9/11 was ONLY about the Pentagon attack. The World Trade Centre was a peripheral."

Uh huh.

Certainly respect for the victims shown there.

-Andrew

That was because that French idiot wrote that book about how it was a missile. It solds hundreds of thousands of copies. That is where the missile batteries at the Pentagon thing started too.

realitybites
1st July 2006, 06:38 PM
I'm a little behind on the Fetzer/Wood thing so I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I'm listening to it now and not 3 minutes in, he's bitching about how Bush is stiffing NYC and DC when it comes to Homeland Security money, stating that they're our "two most important sites for terrorist attacks."

I would love to know, according to him, when the last time either of those cities were attacked by terrorists. 'Cause we all know terrorists weren't behind 9/11. And odds are the 93 WTC bombing wasn't them either, right?

And there's still another 56 minutes of this *****?

gumboot
1st July 2006, 06:40 PM
Argh...

I got 20 minutes into this LC preview thing and had to stop...

I'm literally SEETHING...and I generally don't get angry. These [rule8]'s!

I can't believe they used a live recorded phone call of someone caught in the towers, at the moment of collapse, as part of their twisted little theory. SICK. Utterly incomprehensible.

I need to break something...

-Andrew

Sword_Of_Truth
1st July 2006, 06:47 PM
Emoticons Discuss what smileys we should have.

...and what the required mandatory minimum per post sould be set at.

realitybites
1st July 2006, 07:12 PM
Argh...

I got 20 minutes into this LC preview thing and had to stop...

I'm literally SEETHING...and I generally don't get angry. These [rule8]'s!

I can't believe they used a live recorded phone call of someone caught in the towers, at the moment of collapse, as part of their twisted little theory. SICK. Utterly incomprehensible.

I need to break something...

-Andrew
I believe they got that segment with the phone call from the website with the Moussaoui evidence. I had watched/listened to it without knowing the call would go up to the collapse a few months ago. It left me numb.

That they would use this to promote their third attempt at nailing down "the truth" goes beyond despicable.

Brainster
1st July 2006, 08:34 PM
HE IS STILL SAYING THE HIJACKERS ARE ALIVE?

Wow...just wow. How old is that clip anyways? We don't know of course, I wonder why.

EDIT: Is it possible if I can get the original ;)

Go to the Scholars' website.

Fetzer appears to be Looser than the Loosers, if that's possible.

Gravy
1st July 2006, 08:47 PM
I've already done a fair amount of it--you want to start from say 25 minutes in and I'll stop there?
It's a deal.

JamesB
1st July 2006, 08:52 PM
Idiotic Loose Change Forum theory of the day. From nesync, a favorite lunatic over at SLC

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7279

What I still don't get is how in the world is that engine going to be damaged and not explode the wings that were full of fuel. The first pole impact should have done the trick and even altered the aircraft's course but the wings stayed intact and didn’t blow up until they hit the building. It just doesn't add up.
Yeah, a 100 ton aircraft traveling at 500 MPH is going to have its course altered by a 200lb lightpole with a breakaway base.

Polaris
1st July 2006, 08:55 PM
That was because that French idiot wrote that book about how it was a missile. It solds hundreds of thousands of copies. That is where the missile batteries at the Pentagon thing started too.

I wonder who bought them - I've yet to talk to a Frenchman or Frenchwoman who was even aware of it. Hell, I didn't even know about the 9/11 conspiracy garbage until a girl I was dating (who continues to suffer from Bush Defamation Syndrome) posted a link to 9/11 Is A Lie on her Myspace account. The only other time I've come across it until I came here was one rabid (i.e., unthinking) anti-American juvenile gristlehead from Australia. That's twice in nearly 6 months without going out of my way to look for it. Could the numbers quoted as being sold be overinflated?

karim
1st July 2006, 08:56 PM
Hello

Here are link to a version of the "Usual Suspects" where the first hijacker part has been shortened. They might still be quite long but I guess it depends on how interested you are in what they have to say.

http://www.archive.org/details/The_Usual_Suspects

Links are also on my site
www.karim.co.nr

If you see it worth it please link to this video or "push it up the Google charts":)

gumboot
1st July 2006, 08:59 PM
Yeah, a 100 ton aircraft traveling at 500 MPH is going to have its course altered by a 200lb lightpole with a breakaway base.

Funny thing is, they expect an airliner to have its wings torn off by a light pole, but if same airliner flies into a reinforced concrete wall they expect nice chunky, clearly identifiable parts of airplane lying around.

Duh.

-Andrew

MarkyX
1st July 2006, 09:58 PM
Argh...

I got 20 minutes into this LC preview thing and had to stop...

I'm literally SEETHING...and I generally don't get angry. These [rule8]'s!

I can't believe they used a live recorded phone call of someone caught in the towers, at the moment of collapse, as part of their twisted little theory. SICK. Utterly incomprehensible.

I need to break something...

-Andrew

That part made me cringe as well.

If only I can get the original, we can start a debunking video right away :)

Gravy
1st July 2006, 11:30 PM
Hello
Here are link to a version of the "Usual Suspects" where the first hijacker part has been shortened. They might still be quite long but I guess it depends on how interested you are in what they have to say.

Thanks, Karim. Again, excellent job.

Brainster
2nd July 2006, 01:20 AM
Yeah, that's the smorgasbord thing. Love the interview with Sander Hicks; google him some afternoon when you're looking for a laugh. He's not quite as um, unique as Judy Wood (in a coma for six years?), but still at the far right end of the bell curve on nuttiness.

Okay, my mistake for not reading far up enough. Wow, that's a kooky video and the woman going on about the clocks in the Pentagon segment is hilarious. I also love Kevin Ryan telling us that "I'm certainly not the brightest guy"; that's a definite keeper!

gumboot
2nd July 2006, 01:52 AM
Wow, that's a kooky video and the woman going on about the clocks in the Pentagon segment is hilarious.

I like how a single officer (who was only in the Pentagon temporarily) claiming that there was only ever bomb-sniffer dogs there on 9/11, combined with a couple of inaccurate clocks is irrefutable 100% absolute evidence that a bomb went off in the Pentagon before the plane hit.:confused:

-Andrew

2nd July 2006, 05:07 AM
Loose Change Final Cut Trailer Viewer Guide

Page 1

'Final Cut' consists mainly of talking heads* regurgitating the same tired, old, thoroughly debunked baloney.

(*Fetzer, Jones (Alex), Jim Marr, Kevin Ryan and some others).

Er.....that's it.

scissorhands
2nd July 2006, 05:08 AM
I am watching this drivel as I write.
The interviews are tedium incarnate.I hope it at least speeds up a bit with some funky music
Where is Dylans whining voice over?

MarkyX
2nd July 2006, 05:30 AM
Hello

Here are link to a version of the "Usual Suspects" where the first hijacker part has been shortened. They might still be quite long but I guess it depends on how interested you are in what they have to say.

http://www.archive.org/details/The_Usual_Suspects

Links are also on my site
www.karim.co.nr

If you see it worth it please link to this video or "push it up the Google charts":)

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr

I got quite a few emails about it and even someone suggested that I send this film to Canadian and American forces.

MarkyX
2nd July 2006, 05:32 AM
Loose Change Final Cut Trailer Viewer Guide

Page 1

'Final Cut' consists mainly of talking heads* regurgitating the same tired, old, thoroughly debunked baloney.

(*Fetzer, Jones (Alex), Jim Marr, Kevin Ryan and some others).

Er.....that's it.

And I'll repeat from my cult article..

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

gumboot
2nd July 2006, 05:46 AM
I got quite a few emails about it and even someone suggested that I send this film to Canadian and American forces.

Can I second that suggestion?

-Andrew

MarkyX
2nd July 2006, 05:47 AM
Can I second that suggestion?

-Andrew

I do want that.

However, I need to know HOW.

Belz...
2nd July 2006, 09:34 AM
As a species, we seem to have quite a knack for getting our beliefs in package deals or tie-in sales.

Well, if reflexion is like money in the neural world, and considering how intellectually lazy people usually are, it's only natural that they'd go for the 4-for-1 sales on theories or the 40% off ideologies.

Belz...
2nd July 2006, 09:36 AM
Since when have CTers been aiming for reality? In fact, have the two ever met?

Actually, they've all been banned, bob.

She also dresses up her cat for Halloween (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/YogiHalloween.html). She's just your standard nut looking for attention.

Come on now, Delphi. We dressed as ninjas and took pictures of ourselves.

To each his own, I guess! ;)

Belz...
2nd July 2006, 09:40 AM

OH NO!!! NOT THE WORLD!! ;)

CptColumbo
2nd July 2006, 09:44 AM
Come on now, Delphi. We dressed as ninjas and took pictures of ourselves.

To each his own, I guess! ;)
Some of us dressed our cats up as ninjas, and took pictures.

Brrr. Just felt a cold chill.

delphi_ote
2nd July 2006, 09:56 AM
Come on now, Delphi. We dressed as ninjas and took pictures of ourselves.

To each his own, I guess! ;)
Yes, but we have a sense of irony...

Hutch
2nd July 2006, 11:55 AM
OK, I've been off for ten days while wandering about Mammoth Cave (boy, does it get dark in there when you get left behind and they shut off the lights) and other sundry places.

Did I miss anything interesting? New Bannings at Loose Change? DJ every stick his head back over hear to debate Gravy? New ninja costumes?

OK, go back to wating another 5 days for my ban a LC to end..

Brainster
2nd July 2006, 12:01 PM
I am watching this drivel as I write.
The interviews are tedium incarnate.I hope it at least speeds up a bit with some funky music
Where is Dylans whining voice over?

I don't think there's a chance in the world that this will be the final cut; Dylan just seems to be using that title frame because he's got it handy. He also used it for the smorgasbord video.

I am reasonably confident that most of the film will be similar to LC2 in structure and content. Dylan may add snippets of that interview with the clock lady or the gal who claimed there was radioactivity eight miles from the Pentagon or the cameraman who says the hole in the Pentagon's outer wall was 16 feet wide, but I doubt he will let them ramble on the way he does in the two interviews. (On the other hand, he showed no ability to edit the interview with the guy at the airfield--it's two minutes long and the only payoff is that Hani Hanjour had average to below average piloting skills).

And don't anybody kid themselves; this is going to be a slick production aimed squarely at the young adult market. Dylan's good at this stuff, and he's getting better. Yeah, LC2 is flawed factually, but stylistically it has been an enormous success. I expect the Final Cut to be better than LC2 in that regard.

60hzxtl
2nd July 2006, 12:07 PM
And don't anybody kid themselves; this is going to be a slick production aimed squarely at the young adult market. Dylan's good at this stuff, and he's getting better. Yeah, LC2 is flawed factually, but stylistically it has been an enormous success. I expect the Final Cut to be better than LC2 in that regard.

R.Mackey
2nd July 2006, 12:08 PM
What I still don't get is how in the world is that engine going to be damaged and not explode the wings that were full of fuel. The first pole impact should have done the trick and even altered the aircraft's course but the wings stayed intact and didn’t blow up until they hit the building. It just doesn't add up.
Some years ago I was privileged to attend a destructive evaluation of a fighter jet engine, for the purpose of testing new damage and remaining life sensors in support of a new military program. Without going into too much detail, the donor engine -- which had thousands of hours of hard usage on it already -- was subjected to every form of punishment we could think of, in a gradual but ultimately total manner. Notches were sawed in turbine blades. Lubricants were contaminated. Bearings were deformed. Finally, large solid objects were force-fed into the intake.

I was astonished at how much abuse the engine withstood. Even when it was finally "broken," it did not splinter apart as the Loosers would insist, but only flamed out, showering little fragments out the tailpipe. Any wing it was attached to would have been safe.

Once again, they neither know what they're talking about, nor can be bothered to speak to anyone who does. Not that I'm surprised.

JamesB
2nd July 2006, 03:58 PM
Someone may have already posted this, but I listened to this interview of Steven Jones, by his cousin Alex Jones, and he discusses those mysterious thermite canisters. Supposedly they are these round devices which are attached to steel beams, and when the thermite reacts it is pushed out through a slot, which allows it to make a cut through steel. He never explains how this makes nice smooth horizontal cuts though. Not to mention the fact that if this were true then hundreds, if not thousands of these strange indestructable devices would then be found attached to steel beams in the wreckage. Not a very discreet way of carrying out a murder.

He also repeats the "Marvin Bush was head of WTC security lie."

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm

Johnny C.
2nd July 2006, 04:47 PM
Oh Christ.

Chuck sheen is a mod. he just edited one of my posts and added a link to universal seed.

I quickly edited it out

Now we have to deal with links to that garbage on others posts instead of just his.

Brainster
2nd July 2006, 06:50 PM
Is TheQuest starting to get it?

Here's another one of those idiotic threads (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7277) in LC's Alternative Theories loony bin.

Izzy using CT logic claims that all that has to be done to prove no planes into the WTC is to prove that:

All it takes is one clip, even one frame--of any footage containing a plane found faked that they showed LIVE, is the drop-dead proof of not only was it an Inside Job, but achieved by fraud.

Of course, Izzy does not go on to prove that one frame is faked, leading one to believe that this is either a postulate or that more is to come.

Metric Miler goes on to condemn this speculation:

The planes that hit the towers were real. Its so much easier to use real planes why go through the bother of faking that? Are you nuts?

Im all for the exploration of ideas but really...Thats competely wacko.

He won't last long with that attitude on a CT forum!

TheQuest then stepped in:

How much more wacko than no plane at the Pentagon or Shanksville where debris and holes were also found.

1% more wacko?
5% more wacko?
50% more wacko?

He's right, you know. No planes at the WTC is not that much more wacko than no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville. Of course, I'd say that's because no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is already off the Nutbar-O-Meter. I assume that TheQuest is saying neither is nuts.

rwguinn
2nd July 2006, 06:53 PM
Funny thing is, they expect an airliner to have its wings torn off by a light pole, but if same airliner flies into a reinforced concrete wall they expect nice chunky, clearly identifiable parts of airplane lying around.

Duh.

-Andrew

I recolect thye time a certain major US transportation company wanted to know the feasability of placing accelerometers on their busses so that they would know where and when they hit a deer (telemetry data to a satellite along with GPS data)
When I pointed out to them that the acceleration of the 48000 lb bus at 60 MPH hitting a 1000 lb elk was less than normal braking during operating, they finally gave up...

people just don't get the energy and momentum thing, at all...

tacodaemon
2nd July 2006, 08:47 PM
Here's another one of those idiotic threads (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7277) in LC's Alternative Theories loony bin.
That reminds me, Dylan sure has gotten ticked off in the past at Holmgren and killtown posting no-planer stuff on his board. It's amazing that there's actually a 9/11 conspiracy theory too nutty for even Dylan Avery to believe it. Then again, if his "researcher" Jason decided it was the truth, Dylan would probably come around quick too.

The last time I read one of those no-planer threads in the Alternative Theories bin, Dylan popped up and posted that WNYW footage (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/summaryimages/fox11secondhit.mov) that shows the South Tower strike live from a different perspective than the footage that some other channels were carrying. He got that from Eric Salter's criticism of the no-planers (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html), which goes into a lot of detail on Webfairy and her use of that horribly compression-artifacted version of the Jules Naudet footage of the North Tower strike. Salter's another interesting case that shows up in CT circles sometimes -- he uses his legitimate experience in computer videography to debunk Webfairy's ramblings, and yet he's a CTer himself, particularly when it comes to WTC7. Even though he has a reasonable expectation that Webfairy will defer to his videography expertise, apparently he can't bring himself to defer to other people's expertise in firefighting, structural engineering, and so on. This seems to happen a lot with CT types.

tacodaemon
2nd July 2006, 08:52 PM
Oh, and reading this guy's rambling (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7277&view=findpost&p=5763207) about Rumsfeld-controlled infiltrators on the Loose Change forum, I can't figure out whether he thinks the no-planers are infiltrators out to discredit the movement, or whether he thinks the no-plane theories are right and Rumsfeld's goons are trying to squelch legitimate discussion of them.

EDIT: Oh wait, I didn't even notice he was the same no-planer who started the thread. I'm having a hard time keeping all the LC forumites and their various theories straight.

JamesB
2nd July 2006, 08:54 PM
Oh, and reading this guy's rambling (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7277&view=findpost&p=5763207) about Rumsfeld-controlled infiltrators on the Loose Change forum, I can't figure out whether he thinks the no-planers are infiltrators out to discredit the movement, or whether he thinks the no-plane theories are right and Rumsfeld's goons are trying to quench legitimate discussion of them.

What, you mean I could be getting paid for this? Where do I send my resume?

tacodaemon
2nd July 2006, 08:58 PM
What, you mean I could be getting paid for this? Where do I send my resume?
Just send your blog URL to the right email addresses and pretty soon it'll be hosted at screwloosechange.defenselink.mil, right down the hall from Rummy's office.

Brainster
2nd July 2006, 09:18 PM
He got that from Eric Salter's criticism of the no-planers (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html), which goes into a lot of detail on Webfairy and her use of that horribly compression-artifacted version of the Jules Naudet footage of the North Tower strike. Salter's another interesting case that shows up in CT circles sometimes -- he uses his legitimate experience in computer videography to debunk Webfairy's ramblings, and yet he's a CTer himself, particularly when it comes to WTC7. Even though he has a reasonable expectation that Webfairy will defer to his videography expertise, apparently he can't bring himself to defer to other people's expertise in firefighting, structural engineering, and so on. This seems to happen a lot with CT types.

Salter got cited in the Salon piece as a debunker, which was a wince-worthy moment in an otherwise pretty good article by Farhad Manjoo.

Sword_Of_Truth
2nd July 2006, 11:47 PM
Someone may have already posted this, but I listened to this interview of Steven Jones, by his cousin Alex Jones,
(My emphasis)

Whoa, hang on a second there. Let's not bone ourselves the way the truthers did before CptColumbo handed thier asses to them on the Chertoff cousins claim.

Do you have a source for this?

Before we delve into this, a word of advice... never challenge a mormon on who his relatives are. Geneaology is the one thing we know better than ANYBODY.

JamesB
2nd July 2006, 11:55 PM
(My emphasis)

Whoa, hang on a second there. Let's not bone ourselves the way the truthers did before CptColumbo handed thier asses to them on the Chertoff cousins claim.

Do you have a source for this?

Before we delve into this, a word of advice... never challenge a mormon on who his relatives are. Geneaology is the one thing we know better than ANYBODY.

I was being sarcastic. I just find it amusing that Michael Chertoff has been mentioned as Benjamin Chertoff's uncle, nephew, brother, cousin or just an unnamed relation. They can never figure out which. I am surprised they haven't said he is Ben's mother-in-law. I saw one article which brought up the fact that Chertoff means "of the devil" in Russian. That is actually true, although I had never made the connection before.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 12:06 AM
Ah, ok. Sorry if I came across a tad too confrontational about that James.

We do know though that there are two Jones boys who cannot honestly claim that "Mrs. Jones didn't raise any idiots".

I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if it was the same Mrs. Jones.

Dragon
3rd July 2006, 12:55 AM
I recolect thye time a certain major US transportation company wanted to know the feasability of placing accelerometers on their busses so that they would know where and when they hit a deer (telemetry data to a satellite along with GPS data)
When I pointed out to them that the acceleration of the 48000 lb bus at 60 MPH hitting a 1000 lb elk was less than normal braking during operating, they finally gave up...

people just don't get the energy and momentum thing, at all...They don't, do they? I have a clear recollection of being shown a video of a plank of wood being shot with an ordinary wax candle out of a shotgun. Intuitively the candle would have just broken up but that's not what happened at all - it actually punched a hole right through the wood.
(o/t - This was on a course where they also showed us an unsettling picture of what happens when a military rifle is fired at a standard police issue protective vest :( )

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 01:16 AM
They don't, do they? I have a clear recollection of being shown a video of a plank of wood being shot with an ordinary wax candle out of a shotgun. Intuitively the candle would have just broken up but that's not what happened at all - it actually punched a hole right through the wood.
(o/t - This was on a course where they also showed us an unsettling picture of what happens when a military rifle is fired at a standard police issue protective vest :( )

And what would have happened had this same test been performed in a vacuum with no air to form a shockwave around the candle?

Either way, this is an example of how the CTs fail to graps the concept of science not always working the way they expect it to. In conspiracist parlance, an agent of the bush administration obviously placed a thermite charge to burn through the wooden plank and set it to detonate at precisely the micro-second before the candle made impact.

Dragon
3rd July 2006, 01:19 AM
And what would have happened had this same test been performed in a vacuum with no air to form a shockwave around the candle?Don't know, do you?

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 01:22 AM
Don't know, do you?

No, I don't. It would be interesting to find out. ;)

EDIT: Duuuuhhh... I just realized that shockwaves had nothing to do with it. It's the same principle that allows karate masters to break boards. The wooden plank is bearing the impact along its weakest axis while the candle is being driven into the board along its strongest axis. The result would probably be the same with or without atmosphere in the mix.

EDIT 2: I still think it would be interesting to see the demonstration repeated in a vacuum to see if shockwaves have any effect at all.

Shrinker
3rd July 2006, 03:05 AM
I don't think there's a chance in the world that this will be the final cut; Dylan just seems to be using that title frame because he's got it handy. He also used it for the smorgasbord video.

I am reasonably confident that most of the film will be similar to LC2 in structure and content. Dylan may add snippets of that interview with the clock lady or the gal who claimed there was radioactivity eight miles from the Pentagon or the cameraman who says the hole in the Pentagon's outer wall was 16 feet wide, but I doubt he will let them ramble on the way he does in the two interviews. (On the other hand, he showed no ability to edit the interview with the guy at the airfield--it's two minutes long and the only payoff is that Hani Hanjour had average to below average piloting skills).

And don't anybody kid themselves; this is going to be a slick production aimed squarely at the young adult market. Dylan's good at this stuff, and he's getting better. Yeah, LC2 is flawed factually, but stylistically it has been an enormous success. I expect the Final Cut to be better than LC2 in that regard.

I think you're quite right. I was far to hasty in assuming the title card meant this was actually IT. Mind you, for all Avery's supposed smarts, putting that title card on that movie was a fairly dumb PR move. Like I said earlier about some other thing its the kind of move that works fine for viewers already deep into the CT thing, but will just confuse newcomers.

Anyway, is it possible to download these movies into avi or quicktime form? I can only get the useless google video format. Any way to convert it perhaps? I get the feeling some of the comments in those interviews would be quite compelling if taken out of context, so it would be handy to have the original context on record.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 03:14 AM
And the most accidentally honest appraisal of the truthseeker cult of 2006 is...

It is rough to be an American here because of the British attitude towards the US. I get shouted at regularly because of "Bush". Never voted for the guy and have been a Truther for years. Other than that England is a cool place to be. I find England very receptive to the 9/11 truth movement since they jump onto any kind of American failure/ embarrasment like flies to ****.

...by Buffy the Sheeple Slayer!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7364

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 04:34 AM
Yes, but we have a sense of irony...

DO WE!! MOUahahahahaha!

MikeW
3rd July 2006, 05:03 AM
Anyway, is it possible to download these movies into avi or quicktime form? I can only get the useless google video format. Any way to convert it perhaps?

Shrinker
3rd July 2006, 05:22 AM

Wow, that's great. Thanks MikeW!

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 06:03 AM
Sorry about this, but I've been banned from the Loose Change forum, but there's still a thread over there about what a monster I am. I know that Jenabell reads this because she keeps quoting my posts over there, making me out to be some kind of animal.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171

Well Jenabell, can you explain why a boxcutter is not a dangerous weapon, when I showed you what a razor blade can do to someone's face?

Can you also explain how I am a monster, when you and your buddies over at the LC forum routinely dance a merry jig on the graves of the people killed on 9/11? All I have said is that Dylan Avery thinks boxcutters are harmless. and yet when someone posts that they've been threatened with boxcutters, his response is shear terror? Why does he feel fear when boxcutters are harmless? He was threatened by his own father, a man he knows won't hurt him. Imagine yourself as a passenger, threatened by a man you don't know. You don't know what he wants, how he'll react. You're not even sure if he'll kill you anyway, no matter what you do.

Are boxcutters a dangerous weapon? Either they are, and Dylan's a liar, or they're not, and LiveFreeorDieTryin is a coward. You decide. Are you going to believe Dylan "Never a true word spoken" Avery, or will you show some backbone and stop your grave jigging, and believe LiveFreeorDieTryin was not a coward and boxcutters are dangerous. Your call.

[/derail]

DavidJames
3rd July 2006, 06:38 AM
Sorry about this, but I've been banned from the Loose Change forum, but there's still a thread over there about what a monster I am. I know that Jenabell reads this because she keeps quoting my posts over there, making me out to be some kind of animal.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171

Well Jenabell, can you explain why a boxcutter is not a dangerous weapon, when I showed you what a razor blade can do to someone's face?

Can you also explain how I am a monster, when you and your buddies over at the LC forum routinely dance a merry jig on the graves of the people killed on 9/11? All I have said is that Dylan Avery thinks boxcutters are harmless. and yet when someone posts that they've been threatened with boxcutters, his response is shear terror? Why does he feel fear when boxcutters are harmless? He was threatened by his own father, a man he knows won't hurt him. Imagine yourself as a passenger, threatened by a man you don't know. You don't know what he wants, how he'll react. You're not even sure if he'll kill you anyway, no matter what you do.

Are boxcutters a dangerous weapon? Either they are, and Dylan's a liar, or they're not, and LiveFreeorDieTryin is a coward. You decide. Are you going to believe Dylan "Never a true word spoken" Avery, or will you show some backbone and stop your grave jigging, and believe LiveFreeorDieTryin was not a coward and boxcutters are dangerous. Your call.

[/derail]
posted

60hzxtl
3rd July 2006, 06:39 AM
posted

And nominated.

Bravo.

Stellafane
3rd July 2006, 06:40 AM
...can you answer the question I asked multiple times, one you never truly answered: Why did you post here? Your response of "because I can" is just so mindlessly stupid, that I can't believe even you would accept it. Oh, and while you're mulling over that one, can you explain why you spammed this forum with multiple useless threads, in a nakedly obvious ploy to get suspended? Do you really have that little faith in your ability to contribute to a discussion among adults, and thus had to commit "suicide by mod" in a pathetic attempt to save a little face among your CT'er playpen mates?

In the end, I suppose I should thank you though. So long as the 9/11 "truth" movement is in the hands of people like you and DJ and Avery, I know no one with a multiple-digit IQ will ever take it even remotely seriously. Keep up the good work, jenny...

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 06:42 AM
posted

Cheers, very much appreciated.

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 06:46 AM
And nominated.

Bravo.

:blush: Blimey, thanks.

Brainster
3rd July 2006, 08:01 AM
Sorry about this, but I've been banned from the Loose Change forum, but there's still a thread over there about what a monster I am. I know that Jenabell reads this because she keeps quoting my posts over there, making me out to be some kind of animal.

FYI, Jenabell's a he. Go figure.

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 08:02 AM
FYI, Jenabell's a he. Go figure.

Ah hell, I'll keep calling him a girl just to annoy him then.

Brainster
3rd July 2006, 08:11 AM
Either way, this is an example of how the CTs fail to graps the concept of science not always working the way they expect it to. In conspiracist parlance, an agent of the bush administration obviously placed a thermite charge to burn through the wooden plank and set it to detonate at precisely the micro-second before the candle made impact.

No, man, there was a missile attached to the bottom of the candle that detonated just before the candle hit the plank. I saw it in Loose Wax Version 1!

WildCat
3rd July 2006, 08:12 AM
FYI, Jenabell's a he. Go figure.
I have secretly obtained this pic of him/her. It's all crystal-clear now:

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/trans/IMG_0085.jpg

:D ;)

realitybites
3rd July 2006, 08:15 AM
I have secretly obtained this pic of him/her. It's all crystal-clear now:

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/trans/IMG_0085.jpg

:D ;)
Oddly enough, that's exactly how I pictured her/him.

60hzxtl
3rd July 2006, 08:17 AM
They know everything:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171
<<Heh... Box cutters... I have martial arts training so I would just kick the guy in the face... Honestly, what is longer, the leg or the arm+box cutter?>>

He's got martial arts training!

So, as he sits in his seat with his nose buried in his comic book, the point of a boxcutter sinks into the throat of his unsuspecting seat mate, plunging through the flesh, muscle, and cartilage, pausing only slightly at the resistance of the pulsing artery, before severing it.

How long is your leg now "the" Zack?

Hint: this isn't a math problem.

Hellbound
3rd July 2006, 08:32 AM
Just a few asides:

For those who have had actual combat/defense training, as opposed to "martial arts" (Hey ma! I just got my Camo Belt!), unarmed against a knife will get you cut. 90% chance. You can take em down, but chanes are you'll bleed. This is taught because you must expect it, and be willing to accept it before engaging (if you have a choice). Knives are too quick and easy to manuver...even holding their knif arm they can often deliver small cuts to your holding arm/wrist by moving thier wrist. Very difficult to defend against. And if you try to kick me while i have a knife/boxcutter/whatever, I'm cutting your Achille's tendon. Kick me again, biznatch.

Second, the pictures they've shown of the boxcutters aren't the little "razor blade on the end of a holder" jobs. They're the extendable, break-away blade type that are usually called "utility knives". I have a similar type at home. The blade will extend to about 4 inches or so. And they usually carry multiple blades. I'd rather face a knife.

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 08:35 AM
Would I be wrong in assuming that the hijackers also had some kind of hand to hand combat training, to guard against kung-fu punks on the plane?

Hellbound
3rd July 2006, 08:37 AM
Would I be wrong in assuming that the hijackers also had some kind of hand to hand combat training, to guard against kung-fu punks on the plane?

I doubt it was extensive, but I'd be willing to bet they had some basic training in hand-to-hand. Al-Queida didn't have all those training camps just as places to store their collectable Star Wars figures.

Not to mention that with the money spent on flight schools and other aspects, it's not unreasonable to assume they may have gotten some training here, or even had trainers among their number.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 08:55 AM
I have secretly obtained this pic of him/her. It's all crystal-clear now:

http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/trans/IMG_0085.jpg

:D ;)

Hey now, let's not be too hard on the guy(?).

Here's my pic from some obscure, little-known on-line game:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/K-Lo_blue-profile.jpg

Sometimes a man just needs to feel pretty, know what I'm sayin? ;)

Brainster
3rd July 2006, 09:08 AM
Somebody named Mike Wilson put this terrific animation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/terrific-pentagon-analysis.html) together, tying in the flight path, light pole damage and (in a particularly effective bit) the recent Pentagon video footage. Highly recommended!

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 09:10 AM
Sorry about this, but I've been banned from the Loose Change forum, but there's still a thread over there about what a monster I am. I know that Jenabell reads this because she keeps quoting my posts over there, making me out to be some kind of animal.

Still waiting for her him to become a mod here. Or was that someone else ?

ETA: him/her thingy

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 09:11 AM
:blush: Blimey, thanks.

What the hell does that mean, anyway ??

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 09:15 AM
So, as he sits in his seat with his nose buried in his comic book, the point of a boxcutter sinks into the throat of his unsuspecting seat mate, plunging through the flesh, muscle, and cartilage, pausing only slightly at the resistance of the pulsing artery, before severing it.

How long is your leg now "the" Zack?

Doesn't need one. He's gotta lightsaber, I'm sure !

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 09:17 AM
Our friend Gravy has got an invitation over at the Journal Forum:

Mark Roberts, Perhaps you would wish to join ST911. You should submit a letter of interest. Your perspectives are very interesting and informative. I would be intersted in hearing your theories on thermite/thermate cutting, free fall collapses and other aspects of 911. Why not lend your obvious expertise to the st911 forum. If it is your goal to "debunk" then certainly the group would benefit from your input.
http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=6&mforum=911studies

Somehow I don't think he would fit in too well....

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 09:25 AM
What the hell does that mean, anyway ??

Apparently it started off as "May god blind me if it is not so", got contracted to "God blind me", then "cor blimey", and then just plain old blimey. An expression on a par with "Wow" or "my goodness". Well that's what it says here (http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html#blimey) anyway. It's on my list of old English words and phrases to be pronounced in a comedy cockney accent for greater effect.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 09:33 AM
Our friend Gravy has got an invitation over at the Journal Forum:

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=6&mforum=911studies

Somehow I don't think he would get fit in too well....

He likely exceeds thier maximum allowable structural engineering expertise. :p

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 09:38 AM
And on the subject of structural engineering, could someone please post to the LC boards under this thread: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7113&st=90

...and let Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Johndoe the pilot and Zack the karate master)know that an Associate Member at ST911 is one who does not have a degree in the listed field?

They are still missing that structural engineer.

Oh, be forewarned, humiliating JohndoeX is a banning offense over there.

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 09:38 AM
He likely exceeds thier maximum allowable structural engineering expertise. :p

According to them, they have thousands of structural engineers who support them. They are all just in hiding under the witness protection program.

3rd July 2006, 09:56 AM
Somebody named Mike Wilson put this terrific animation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/terrific-pentagon-analysis.html) together, tying in the flight path, light pole damage and (in a particularly effective bit) the recent Pentagon video footage. Highly recommended!Most excellent!

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 10:00 AM
Apparently it started off as "May god blind me if it is not so", got contracted to "God blind me", then "cor blimey", and then just plain old blimey. An expression on a par with "Wow" or "my goodness". Well that's what it says here (http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html#blimey) anyway. It's on my list of old English words and phrases to be pronounced in a comedy cockney accent for greater effect.

Okay. Doesn't explain the "cor", though.

Thanks.

Johnny Pixels
3rd July 2006, 10:02 AM
Okay. Doesn't explain the "cor", though.

The cor was concrete with 3" rebar on 4' centres.

pgwenthold
3rd July 2006, 10:15 AM
Mark Roberts, Perhaps you would wish to join ST911. You should submit a letter of interest. Your perspectives are very interesting and informative. I would be intersted in hearing your theories on thermite/thermate cutting, free fall collapses and other aspects of 911. Why not lend your obvious expertise to the st911 forum. If it is your goal to "debunk" then certainly the group would benefit from your input.

No offense to Gravy, but I would prefer to hear about thermite/thermate cutting from someone who is an expert in explosives, like Huntsman. I think that is a big difference between me and the Loosers. I prefer to learn from experts, and not think I know enough about things outside my field.

I don't know what they are talking about in this "free fall collapse" stuff. That is a question of fact, and I have never seen it established that the building feel at "free fall" in the way they use the term. I have seen estimates of the falling that range from 8 to 15 seconds, and the free fall is only at the low end of that range.

60hzxtl
3rd July 2006, 10:17 AM
According to them, they have thousands of structural engineers who support them. They are all just in hiding under the witness protection program.

I was at Ground Zero on Sat. I met Jimmy Walker, who handed me a DVD, and says, "a million dollars if I can prove there were no explosives in # 7."

Or as it says on the DVD "Prove Explosives were NOT used THE \$1,000,000 CHALLENGE go to. . . for details."

I said "you can't prove a negative."

He said, "Yes you can."

There was no place to go from there.

Me? Johnny Walker is more reliable. And you can put the cork back in it anytime you want.

eta: Freefall is not (popular not scientific term) Terminal Velocity. The way they use "freefall" is meaningless. Its even more fun to hear a ct'er say "at the speed of Gravity." another thing I heard on Sat.

Does anyone know if the speed of gravity is a constant, or is it effected by heat, moisture, or altitude? I'm just asking questions. . .

Hellbound
3rd July 2006, 10:44 AM
No offense to Gravy, but I would prefer to hear about thermite/thermate cutting from someone who is an expert in explosives, like Huntsman.

I appreciate the compliment, but I want to reiterate that I am NOT an expert in explosives.

Call me a well-educated layman, perhaps. Expert I ain't ;)

60hzxtl
3rd July 2006, 10:46 AM
Call me a well-educated layman, perhaps. Expert I ain't ;)

There are no experts, only different levels of ignorance.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 10:50 AM
Oh bloody hell... Johndoes black hole of stupid is sucking the brains out of everyone over there.

All that had to survive intact was a single chip of static random access memory (SRAM).

The phone didn't need to be operational in order to get the numbers out of it.

And of course that tiny circuit board survived and was found, but the buildings and surrounds were completely destroyed....gotcha.

I need to becaome a critical thinker too, it would allow all my stupid comments to have a defense.

How does this idiot think that police bomb squads are able to recover fragments of bomb casings and detonators for analysis? And that's from actual bombs themselves, not just things nearby the bombs.

EDIT: Link to the thread despite the potential brain damage it may cause those who read it: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7378&st=30

MikeW
3rd July 2006, 11:02 AM
Would I be wrong in assuming that the hijackers also had some kind of hand to hand combat training, to guard against kung-fu punks on the plane?
Yes, or at least some of them did.

aggle-rithm
3rd July 2006, 11:03 AM
They know everything:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171
<<Heh... Box cutters... I have martial arts training so I would just kick the guy in the face... Honestly, what is longer, the leg or the arm+box cutter?>>

He's got martial arts training!

So, as he sits in his seat with his nose buried in his comic book, the point of a boxcutter sinks into the throat of his unsuspecting seat mate, plunging through the flesh, muscle, and cartilage, pausing only slightly at the resistance of the pulsing artery, before severing it.

How long is your leg now "the" Zack?

Hint: this isn't a math problem.

This kind of false bravado cracks me up.

I managed a restaurant about 16 years ago that got robbed by a 16-year-old gang member with a gun. There was a lot of tough talk from people who weren't actually there and didn't approve of the manager on duty for just handing over the money. They said, "It was just a kid! I would have kicked his @ss!"

Sure you would. Never mind that a 16-year-old with a gun is far more dangerous than a 30-year old, since he never gives a thought to the consequences of his actions.

I also got a kick out of someone saying that if their life was in danger, they would fight! Never mind the fact that, at the time, the only way the passengers would have believed their lives were in danger was if they got within stabbing range of that blade.

Hellbound
3rd July 2006, 11:10 AM
There are no experts, only different levels of ignorance.

Well stated :)

pgwenthold
3rd July 2006, 11:30 AM
I appreciate the compliment, but I want to reiterate that I am NOT an expert in explosives.

Call me a well-educated layman, perhaps. Expert I ain't ;)

Noted, but you still are far more edumacated on the subject than Gravy, who's extent of knowledge is, well, basically what you have taught him.

Again, no offense to Gravy, and, as I note, it is in fact a strength to defer to people who know more about the topic than you do (particularly when they provide the basis for their opinion; I was just thinking about this last night when thinking about A Few Good Men. The medical examiner gives his "professional opinion" that Santiago was poisoned, but found no poison on the rag or in the body; Bacon resorts to listing qualifications as the basis for the verocity of the opinion. The point is made that qualifications alone don't make the argument, and the strength of the argument depends on its merits, and not the person making it. However, it is also true that proper qualificiations are often important so that the person making the argument has sufficient knowledge about the subject so to know the issues involved. IOW, there is good reason to dismiss "qualifications" when an expert says, "This is my opinion" but can't provide a justification. However, if it is an issue of "dueling descriptions" of the same event, in that case qualifications are relevant because the address the knowledge base from which those descriptions are being made.)

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 11:32 AM
This kind of false bravado cracks me up.

Anyone wanna bet that "the" zacks black belt is in bulljitsu?

Aaaannnd it looks like Jennybelle is flippin out over in loose screwsville. I think he's jealous cuz my pic prettier than all the other boys and I have bigger hooters than him. :p

One more thing...is Sword_of_Truth trying to make JREF'ers look stupid on purpose? Really nobody is that stupid. At least I nobody is that stupid unless being that stupid on purpose.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171&st=30

If irony could kill...

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 12:09 PM
The cor was concrete with 3" rebar on 4' centres.

Ugh. We've been on this subject for too long.

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 12:11 PM
Its even more fun to hear a ct'er say "at the speed of Gravity."

At the SPEED of gravity ? The who to the what, now ?

60hzxtl
3rd July 2006, 12:19 PM
At the SPEED of gravity ? The who to the what, now ?

I kid you not!

Heard it from a CT'er at ground zero.

The Speed of Gravity! That's how fast # 7 fell.

XXX
3rd July 2006, 12:25 PM
Somebody named Mike Wilson put this terrific animation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/terrific-pentagon-analysis.html) together, tying in the flight path, light pole damage and (in a particularly effective bit) the recent Pentagon video footage. Highly recommended!

Just watched it. Outstanding.

WildCat
3rd July 2006, 12:43 PM
Aaaannnd it looks like Jennybelle is flippin out over in loose screwsville. I think he's jealous cuz my pic prettier than all the other boys and I have bigger hooters than him. :p

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171&st=30

If irony could kill...
Since you still read these forums jenny, and you still have an active account here, why did you run like a sissy and then try to commit suicide by mod rather than defend your nutjob theories?

Show us you're not that man in the dress, but just like DJRunaway, Rox the Wonder Dog, and all the other loosers you just run away and hide rather than fight for your beliefs. Really sad.

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 12:45 PM
I found a link for the previously discussed Keebler Elves speech, which has the powerpoint. Check out the picture.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PPT_Presentations.html#JudyWood

Stellafane
3rd July 2006, 12:47 PM
OK, so he chooses the name jenabell on LC and Sylvia here. Anyone else spot a trend?

Not that there's anything wrong with it...

gumboot
3rd July 2006, 12:47 PM
The animation is fantastic. I love the little drop down into the fish-eye lens...

Another thing to consider with these terrorists...

Some of them, at least, were Osama's prize Mujahedeen. They are hard, hard men, with many years of experience fighting first the Soviet Union, then whoever they felt like fighting. These are the worst combination - extreme religious fanatics, and cold hard killers.

I have this absolutely fascinating, and somewhat disturbing book called "On Killing: The Psychological Cost Of Learning To Kill In War And Society". One of the things it talks about is the "wind of hate" - the psychological impact of being the subject of hostility (for most people even just confronting their boss about a raise at work is too confrontational). As an example, he cites research that indicates that the vast majority of serial killer victims offered so little resistance they "virtually assisted in their own murders".

When a screaming fantatic, 1000 yard-stare killer Jihadist terrorist takes over your plane, the "wind of hate" would be pretty significant. Most of the passengers would probably be so psychologically traumatised by the mere PRESENCE of the terrorists that they were incapable of action (then add knives and maybe a few people with slit throats to the equation...). That is what makes the actions of the passengers on United 93 so heroic - they overcame that wind of hate. (And lets be honest, could they have honestly believed they had a good chance of success?)

-Andrew

tacodaemon
3rd July 2006, 01:05 PM
So, as he sits in his seat with his nose buried in his comic book, the point of a boxcutter sinks into the throat of his unsuspecting seat mate, plunging through the flesh, muscle, and cartilage, pausing only slightly at the resistance of the pulsing artery, before severing it.
Hey now, I'm sure The Zack hasn't got time for comic books when he's fighting his two biggest enemies (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171&view=findpost&p=5707073) James Randi and the "NWO".

mrfreeze
3rd July 2006, 01:47 PM
Not to derail, but I just got around to actually watching Screw Loose Change last night and I want to say congrats to all involved. The breathers in each section were probably all that kept me from bursting a blood vessel in rage.

MarkyX
3rd July 2006, 01:52 PM
Not to derail, but I just got around to actually watching Screw Loose Change last night and I want to say congrats to all involved. The breathers in each section were probably all that kept me from bursting a blood vessel in rage.

I love those breather moments :P

Onto something else. Apparently, a CTer actually did some proper research and guess what ladies and gents? "Pull it" isn't an actually JUST a firefighter term, but a demo term also

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3

But...when you look at the bigger picture, this point is rather moot.

A) What insurance scandel? WTC7 was rebuilt

B) If it's soooo obvious, why grant the money in the first place?

C) In my SLC video, I do show Firefighters also coining that phrase when they are looking at the burning building

D) Why demo the building several hours afterthe Two Towers collapse?

E) I don't remember Firefighters able to demo buildings.

But whatever, screw the facts. Making up crap can be so much more entertaining.

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 02:08 PM
I kid you not!

Heard it from a CT'er at ground zero.

The Speed of Gravity! That's how fast # 7 fell.

...stupid gravity and it's ridiculous acceleration. Damn! Damn that big bang and its symmetry-breaking and all the laws of the universe that came with it...

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 02:09 PM
OK, so he chooses the name jenabell on LC and Sylvia here. Anyone else spot a trend?

Not that there's anything wrong with it...

That was HER HIM ??

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 02:11 PM
A) What insurance scandel? WTC7 was rebuilt

B) If it's soooo obvious, why grant the money in the first place?

Well DDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!! The insurance company was IN ON IT.

Stoopid skeptikz. [add flurry of smileys here]

steve s
3rd July 2006, 02:12 PM
Somebody named Mike Wilson put this terrific animation (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/terrific-pentagon-analysis.html) together, tying in the flight path, light pole damage and (in a particularly effective bit) the recent Pentagon video footage. Highly recommended!

That animation is wonderful. It sure shoots down the cruise missile myth. The missile would have had to zig-zag back and forth to hit all those light poles. I don't suppose its flight path would have been programmed for that.

Steve S.

bob_kark
3rd July 2006, 02:14 PM
...stupid gravity and it's ridiculous acceleration. Damn! Damn that big bang and its symmetry-breaking and all the laws of the universe that came with it...

Hmmm... It does make me wonder what the terminal velocity of a World Trade Center 1 would be.

Kent1
3rd July 2006, 02:20 PM
I found a link for the previously discussed Keebler Elves speech, which has the powerpoint. Check out the picture.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PPT_Presentations.html#JudyWood

I saw the elf shots. LOL!!! She still says 10 sec. for the fall time. She does not belong teaching in public schools. :jaw-dropp

3rd July 2006, 02:31 PM
Hey now, I'm sure The Zack hasn't got time for comic books when he's fighting his two biggest enemies (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7171&view=findpost&p=5707073) James Randi and the "NWO".Suffer the little children.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 02:38 PM
I just found this little gem by Jerry Pournelle (author:"Lucifers Hammer"with Larry Niven, "The Mote in God's Eye", "Man-Kzin Wars II").

I don't think I've seen the matter of controlled demolition boiled down quite so eloquently anywhere else.

I am neither an uncritical supporter nor a fanatic detractor of Bush, but I don't have to be either to question these papers. I will have a longer analysis another time, but begin with this:

The probability that the buildings were brought down in the pattern in which they fell is 1.0. Every explanation of the way they fell turns out to be a low probability event -- but the probability that one of those low probability explanations is true is one, because the buildings did fall in the improbable way that they fell.

Now: is it more or less probable that a dozen people were able to plant explosives -- at least a hundred pounds per building, and likely a lot more -- without being observed; that they were so expertly placed as to work perfectly, given the high level of expertise that it takes to do this; that despite the damage done by the fires, the preplaced explosives worked just right as planned; that someone wanted the buildings to fall straight down instead of toppling; that the wires and primacord connectors to the explosives survived the fires and went off in the proper sequence at the proper time; that the hijackers knew where the preplanted explosives were and struck the buildings in just the right places so that the buildings began to collapse at the floor where the airplane hit in both the main buildings; and that someone wanting to bring down the buildings and having the ability clandestinely to plant these explosives and their detonating circuitry and the primacord to link them in the right patterns would then take the trouble to hijack airplanes and use up good agents in order to hide the fact that explosives had been planted --- is all that more probable than that the darned things fell due to fires, and that jet fuel fanned properly with a chimney effect is just a lot hotter than we thought it would be?

Professor Jones says his is a simple and elegant explanation. I would not have said so. He posits a near perfect conspiracy, with no one observing the planting of the explosives and the stringing of wires: and this is simple and elegant? Perhaps so, but three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. And in this case if all those who planted the explosives died in the fires and crash, it was a very large sacrifice of trained agents willing to die for the cause.

Not, I think, so likely.

There are plenty of anomalies in the 911 building collapses, and having them fall in the way they did is a low probability event (apparently; I will accept the professor's word on that). But they did fall the way they did, and I don't find it more likely that the complex sequence of events that would have had to happen had there been hidden explosives took place. And see below.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail388.html#911explosives

pgwenthold
3rd July 2006, 02:54 PM
I just found this little gem by Jerry Pournelle (author:"Lucifers Hammer"with Larry Niven, "The Mote in God's Eye", "Man-Kzin Wars II").

"...that someone wanted the buildings to fall straight down instead of toppling"

Maybe I am missing something, but doesn't the fact that the buildings fell "straight down" just reflect the fact that the collapse started near the top, well above the center of gravity? Thus, as the thing starts collapsing, the center of gravity of the stand structure just keeps moving lower and lower, but it follows the path of the building.

If someone blew the bottom out, it would be different. But if you just pulvarize the top, it will just fall on the thing below it.

I wonder if you could do this demo with an aluminum can. Put a cinderblock on top of it and then figure out a way to weaken it at the top, or weaken it at the bottom. See how it collapses. I bet if you can get it to collapse by weakening the top, it would collapse straight down. Weaken the bottom, it will tip.

3rd July 2006, 03:02 PM
...There are plenty of anomalies in the 911 building collapses, and having them fall in the way they did is a low probability event (apparently; I will accept the professor's word on that)...First, I don't know that there are "plenty" of anomolies. But setting that aside, I fail to see how the buildings fell is a "low probability event."

Here's something I've posted before:I tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.Low probability or no, there's only so much a structure can take before its design parameters are exceeded.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 03:17 PM
Pournelles comments are somewhat out of date considering what we now know about the towers collapse (and the evolution of the CD theory by the nutters desperate to make it true). He is kinder to Professor Jones than many of us here have been (especially myself), and it seems to reflect a rather cursory examination of either the CD theories, the "official version" or both.

But I still like how he sums up the huge odds against the successful conclusion of the operation it would have taken to fake the attacks.

MarkyX
3rd July 2006, 03:22 PM
I saw the elf shots. LOL!!! She still says 10 sec. for the fall time. She does not belong teaching in public schools. :jaw-dropp

I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.

bob_kark
3rd July 2006, 03:38 PM
I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.
I think you're right as I really don't know if intelligence has anything to do with belief in the CT. We obviously have college professors who are willing to back up the CT. I would assume that in order to obtain their position, they would have to be reasonably intelligent. I think ignorance and personality play a much larger factor.

I'm sure we've all known or have met someone who believes the US government is the source for all evil in the world. In addition, I believe there are many people that think they can prove there was a conspiracy but are ignorant of proper research and fact checking methods. So not only can they not properly explain why they believe their view to be correct, they're unable to see why it is infact incorrect. I don't know how many CT articles I've viewed whose source traces back to either a misunderstanding of the original material, an all out misrepresentation of the original material, or complete speculation. In addition, many tend to rely on the old, "well you know their evil so of course they would/could have done it," approach.

Though, you bring up a great point. Perhaps universities and high schools should place more attention on how to properly research and fact check materials so that students, and later adults, develop a more highly tuned BS meter.

Gravy
3rd July 2006, 03:47 PM
Our friend Gravy has got an invitation over at the Journal Forum:

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=6&mforum=911studies

Somehow I don't think he would fit in too well....
I'll do it if they offer me a scholarship.

Gravy
3rd July 2006, 03:50 PM
No offense to Gravy, but I would prefer to hear about thermite/thermate cutting from someone who is an expert in explosives, like Huntsman.
Yes, I took exception to that guy calling me (even sarcastically) an "obvious expert." Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take expertise to refute most of what they say. It takes honesty.

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 04:17 PM
I'll do it if they offer me a scholarship.

I'll chip in \$5 and a 2 for 1 coupon at a local Mexican restaurant...

Mongrel
3rd July 2006, 04:19 PM
First, I don't know that there are "plenty" of anomolies. But setting that aside, I fail to see how the buildings fell is a "low probability event."

Here's something I've posted before:Low probability or no, there's only so much a structure can take before its design parameters are exceeded.tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

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

As an addition to your excellent points Reg :) (and a quick keep up the good work to everyone, I just struggle reading most of it) I'd hazard a guess that the only experience that 99% of the population has of 'knocking down towers' is either building blocks or Lego. They have neither the experience to know how large, well built structures fall down, the education to work out 'fairly basic' physics or the humility\sceptically to say "Can you show me once more, this time in laymens terms"

Gravy
3rd July 2006, 04:26 PM
I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.
How does that explain us?
I doubt if the CTs represent the typical American/Canadian's belief about 9/11. If you presented the following list of claims to the average person on the street, how many of them would say, "I didn't know all of that, but it makes perfect sense?"

• U.S. air defenses were ordered to “stand down” on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed.
• An unusual number of war games were deliberately held on 9/11 to occupy and confuse potential defenders.
• Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 wreckage or human remains were recovered and identified there. It disappeared and no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or its passengers. The Pentagon was probably struck by a smaller military plane or a missile.
• Flight 93 did not crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to storm the cockpit. No aircraft wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified there. Instead, flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland where its passengers were removed and presumably killed. That plane may have contained not only flight 93’s passengers, but all the passengers from the other three planes as well. The actual plane, tail number N591UA, was still in use as of 2003.
• None of the many calls made by passengers on the hijacked aircraft were real. All the calls were perfectly faked by the conspirators using “voice-morphing” technology. The fakes occurred in real time as events unfolded, and were good enough to fool all the relatives of the “alleged” callers.
• At least 9 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11.
• al Qaeda had no role in the attacks. Videos of bin Laden admitting his involvement are faked.
• World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by pre-planted explosive devices. Additional explosive devices blew up in the Twin Towers prior to the demolition charges going off. The towers did not collapse due to structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft striking them. Fires were not severe in the towers. WTC 7 sustained slight structural damage and fires.
• One of the cleanup contractors at the WTC, Controlled Demolitions Inc., may have been involved in the WTC’s destruction, as well as in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995. CDI executed an “unexplained” demolition of two 400-foot gas tanks in NYC in June, 2001.
• No inspection was allowed of WTC debris. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered all potential evidence to be removed from the site.
• Investors with advance knowledge of 9/11 made millions in the stock market.
• A document produced by prominent Neo-Cons in 2000 called for a “New Pearl Harbor,” an attack on Americans by Americans.
• Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the World Trade Center, profited by overinsuring his buildings and ordered the FDNY to blow up WTC 7.
• George W. Bush’s brother Marvin ran WTC security operations.
• \$166.8 billion in gold was stolen from the vaults beneath the World Trade Center.
• No real investigation of the causes of the attacks was done.

I think most people have more sense than that. But if you phrase these things as questions, such as, "Did you know that Marvin Bush ran WTC security?" the answer is likely to be, "No, I didn't know that!" Of course, the same answer might be given to the question, "Did you know that Godzilla destroyed Tokyo?"

In my experience teaching college students, I have been shocked at how readily many of them will believe almost anything that's said with authority. I've used that as a teaching tool, by making up "factual" stories that start out implausibly and keep going and going, until someone pipes up and says, "Hey, wait a minute!" It can take a very long time to get to that point. So, that seems like a real failure of education at home and at the lower levels.

BUT, I've also found that those same students, once clued in about how uncritically they've been thinking, "get it" very quickly. And once they "get it," they don't easily revert to credowooophilia.

Kent1
3rd July 2006, 04:32 PM
Yes, I took exception to that guy calling me (even sarcastically) an "obvious expert." Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take expertise to refute most of what they say. It takes honesty.
If you want to join the group this is the person to ask I believe.
greglopreato@yahoo.com

I'd give it a shot.

hellaeon
3rd July 2006, 04:42 PM
Hey I notice Jenabells english comprehension has improved since browsing the JREF HIVE/CULT forums.

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 05:06 PM
Hmmm... It does make me wonder what the terminal velocity of a World Trade Center 1 would be.

The speed of GRAVITY, you fool!! GRAVITY!!11!

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 05:12 PM
I think you're right as I really don't know if intelligence has anything to do with belief in the CT. We obviously have college professors who are willing to back up the CT. I would assume that in order to obtain their position, they would have to be reasonably intelligent. I think ignorance and personality play a much larger factor.

I'll second that. I've said before that ignorance it humanity's greatest enemy. The mere fact that you don't know about something makes you believe all sorts of weird stuff, every day.

Though, you bring up a great point. Perhaps universities and high schools should place more attention on how to properly research and fact check materials so that students, and later adults, develop a more highly tuned BS meter.

I've also said that elementary schools should have courses in logic and critical thinking.

Belz...
3rd July 2006, 05:14 PM
"Did you know that Godzilla destroyed Tokyo?"

Several times.

Hey I notice Jenabells english comprehension has improved since browsing the JREF HIVE/CULT forums.

Serve the hive!!

Brainster
3rd July 2006, 05:22 PM
Yes, I took exception to that guy calling me (even sarcastically) an "obvious expert." Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't take expertise to refute most of what they say. It takes honesty.

Our chief weapon is honesty. Honest and a devotion to the facts--our two chief weapons are honesty and a devotion to the facts. And the ability to put two and two together--our three chief weapons are....

You know, I had been a little leery of taking them on, until I heard Fetzer on Colmes and realized he's Jason Bermas with a little better memory.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've seen little put out by that organization that's scholarly or truthful.

Ah, but they are "for" something, so the title is only mostly fraudulent.

Sword_Of_Truth
3rd July 2006, 05:24 PM
You all have heard the woo stories of the "remote viewers" (psychic spies for the CIA)? Well, I think we've accidentally invented "remote trolling".

It seems JENNYBELLE is incapable of controlling him/herself whne his/her name is mentioned here. She/it (sh_t?) inevitably responds with pavlovian predictability... but on the LC board.

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 06:57 PM
Our chief weapon is honesty. Honest and a devotion to the facts--our two chief weapons are honesty and a devotion to the facts. And the ability to put two and two together--our three chief weapons are....

You know, I had been a little leery of taking them on, until I heard Fetzer on Colmes and realized he's Jason Bermas with a little better memory.

Ah, but they are "for" something, so the title is only mostly fraudulent.

Yeah, that was a great response. I knew I should have copyrighted the neither truthfull nor scholarly line. :D

Group relies on rumors distorted over the years

I have been following the 9/11 conspiracy theorists lately, but I was still surprised to see one of the theories being published in the Seattle P-I. What's next, editorials denying the Holocaust or the moon landings? The organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth, like most of the conspiracy theorists, is interested in neither scholarship nor truth. Like all conspiracy theorists, they rely not on the scientific method but by focusing on third-generation rumors distorted from the original, and then the complete avoidance of any information that might contradict their theory.

realitybites
3rd July 2006, 09:38 PM
From our pal ChuckSheen across the way:
Kevin Cosgrove and Doug Cherry never lost footing on floor 105 until the demolition. This indicates that there was no sagging hence no pancaking.
I believe he's referring to the live phone call recording that lead up to the collapse of WTC2.

Truly remarkable.

gumboot
3rd July 2006, 09:49 PM
I think the events of 9/11 have the worst (or best) ingredients for developing conspiracy theories - hence why there are so many.

1) It involved events that few people have any knowledge of
2) It was widely reported by the media, much of it live

The problem with this is, you have the combination of a bunch of people who are seeing first-hand evidence of the events, but do not understand any of what they are seeing.

Yet people have a tendency to believe that they can determine events based on video footage - they see footage of events as being more solid evidence than any investigation.

Think of it this way... imagine a bunch of people who don't really know much about football, but they watch a game on the TV. They all saw it, so they all think they have the authority to make judgements on every aspect of the game.

In contrast, had they heard the game on the radio, they wouldn't have the same dillusion that they had all the necessary judgement to make their assessments.

The problem is, just like physics or engineering or anything else, video interpretation is a highly specialised skill.

People like us recognise this, and seek collaborating information. CTers think they can perfectly interpret video footage, and that BECAUSE they can interpret it so clearly, any other "evidence" becomes secondary.

I'm in no way a video interpretation expert, but I have trained and studied it somewhat. The vast majority (if not all) of their claims are based on one of two things:
1) Early speculative media reports
2) Incorrect video interpretation

Based purely on my megre knowledge of video interpretation I quickly recognised many of their errors (that's not including the times where they claimed "clearly seen" and in my opinion nothing at all was "clearly seen"). That alone refutes their claims. Yet in ADDITION, we have sought collaborating sources. THEY are our primary evidence - it is the video footage that is supplemental. And regardless of what video interpretation skills you do or don't have, the overwhelming majority of other evidence supports the official explanation, and directly contradicts the CTs.

-Andrew

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 10:47 PM
Loosers freak out over Gravy. They are trying to figure out where he is hosting, like they want to hack the site or something.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7411
This is a serious attack on our mission.

Cursing at this website won't work. Attacking the author won't work; never does. We need some serious efforts to debunk this attack.

Loose Change is hugely popular and that is great. Loose Change has a voice; a voice that needs to use its popularity to answer critics before the Loose Change critics gain a following.

Take a look at http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Don't let websites like this last. The BEST response is probably changing Loose Change in a way to silence this kind of website.

Oddly enough, we aren't trying to silence them. They are our best proof of how stupid they are. I want Jim Fetzer to make more speeches, not less.

Gravy
3rd July 2006, 10:56 PM
Loosers freak out over Gravy. They are trying to figure out where he is hosting, like they want to hack the site or something.
When you read further in that thread, it's clear the author is pulling their chains. Probably a JREF Ninja.

Ducky
3rd July 2006, 11:10 PM
When you read further in that thread, it's clear the author is pulling their chains. Probably a JREF Ninja.

I think you might be very surprised at how many JREF ninjas are serruptitiously inserting their jokes over there.

Or at least, how many socks we have over there.

SRW
3rd July 2006, 11:20 PM
I think the fact that these people are believing these theories is proof the ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM is a failure.

I heard another speaker talk about how the buildings fell at the "speed of gravity" and received a standing ovation for that statement. I explained to the group that the building could not fall at the speed of gravity that it had to fall at 1/2 the speed of gravity * 2. as pointed out in Newtons special class of inverse proportions. Silence is golden. ;)

Brainster
3rd July 2006, 11:25 PM
I heard another speaker talk about how the buildings fell at the "speed of gravity" and received a standing ovation for that statement. I explained to the group that the building could not fall at the speed of gravity that it had to fall at 1/2 the speed of gravity * 2. as pointed out in Newtons special class of inverse proportions. Silence is golden. ;)

No, man, it fell faster than the speed of gravity because the implosion sucked the building down!

JamesB
3rd July 2006, 11:26 PM
My mistake then. With these people it is hard to tell parody from when they are being serious. :confused:

Brainster
4th July 2006, 12:17 AM
Proving James' point, this guy became famous for his proof that wooden planes could not have crashed into a wooden World Trade Center. He's back with a scientific experiment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836) that will both amaze and astound you. Do not miss this one! He's got photos this time!

Correction: This is an older post of his. But you will enjoy it if you haven't seen it.

karim
4th July 2006, 01:21 AM
Proving James' point, this guy became famous for his proof that wooden planes could not have crashed into a wooden World Trade Center. He's back with a scientific experiment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836) that will both amaze and astound you. Do not miss this one! He's got photos this time!

Correction: This is an older post of his. But you will enjoy it if you haven't seen it.

That was hilarious.

gumboot
4th July 2006, 01:29 AM
He's back with a scientific experiment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836) that will both amaze and astound you. Do not miss this one! He's got photos this time!

That was ridiculous...

And highly amusing...

Thanks :D

-Andrew

Belz...
4th July 2006, 04:48 AM
Yet people have a tendency to believe that they can determine events based on video footage - they see footage of events as being more solid evidence than any investigation.

Well, investigation is such a non-public process, right ? I guess they feel left out, and therefore it's suspicious.