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
13th July 2006, 06:43 AM
Oh dog, now we're back to "IT WAS THE JEWS (or at least the evil Zionists and the Neo-COn Zionists)...:eek: :jaw-dropp :rolleyes:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8057

The level of stupid just went up a few more notches...

You didn't know that?

Lots of people think Alex Jones is a Zionest also, and believe the movie "Loose Change" is actually a Jewish plot to steer away from the real people behind the 9/11 attacks: TEH JOOOOS. Hell, I've read some message boards about a month ago accusing Dylan Avery and the rest of the company to be all Jewish.

These idiots can't even agree with one another, and we are supposed to take them seriously.

milesalpha
13th July 2006, 06:51 AM
New subforum at LC (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=36)

Funny thing is he has posted his first debate, yet his initial argument seems to lack physical evidence, logic, science or reason. It is simply some innuendo with the usual questions.

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 07:00 AM
Just now in this thread:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8013&st=90

John said: I didnt say "airline pilot" for over 20 years. I said i been in the business flying for over 20 years.

In this thread:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7903

John said regarding Iran Contra: I was in middle school i think when it happened. Iran Contra was made public in 1986, 20 years ago.

Maybe his memory of personal things is no better than his grasp of facts.

WildCat
13th July 2006, 07:01 AM
So now johndoeX has been forced to admit he's not a working pilot, due to many pilots losing there jobs after 9/11 or he's on medical leave (because he's nuts perhaps?), depending on which of his posts you read. Someone said he claimed to be still in middle school when Iran/Contra broke, and he also claimed to be flying for 20 years w/ thousands of hours on jets. Anyone dig up the Iran/Contra post to further bust his balls?

And I love that credentials thread, absolutely hilarious! The loosers are all experts w/ high levels of education, yet they write like 9th graders and have reasoning skills far below that.

Too bad the new forum is "members only". No doubt because they realize they keep geting their ***es handed to them on a silver platter whenever they debate a skeptic. I may have to register a sock there just for lurking purposes!

eta: I see his balls have been busted on the Iran/Contra thread. Have to take the cat to the vet, be back later to see the ensuing hilarity!

chipmunk stew
13th July 2006, 07:14 AM
JDX also hinted that it should be relatively easy to figure out who he is, given enough persistence. My first guess is Nila Sagadevan:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 07:17 AM
eta: I see his balls have been busted on the Iran/Contra thread. Have to take the cat to the vet, be back later to see the ensuing hilarity!link?

Kiwiwriter
13th July 2006, 07:19 AM
So now johndoeX has been forced to admit he's not a working pilot, due to many pilots losing there jobs after 9/11 or he's on medical leave (because he's nuts perhaps?), depending on which of his posts you read. Someone said he claimed to be still in middle school when Iran/Contra broke, and he also claimed to be flying for 20 years w/ thousands of hours on jets. Anyone dig up the Iran/Contra post to further bust his balls?

And I love that credentials thread, absolutely hilarious! The loosers are all experts w/ high levels of education, yet they write like 9th graders and have reasoning skills far below that.

Too bad the new forum is "members only". No doubt because they realize they keep geting their ***es handed to them on a silver platter whenever they debate a skeptic. I may have to register a sock there just for lurking purposes!

eta: I see his balls have been busted on the Iran/Contra thread. Have to take the cat to the vet, be back later to see the ensuing hilarity!


Well, remember that the whole key to the Internet flame world is anonymity. You can be anyone you want, claim any kind of past and credentials you like, and most of your interlocutors and opponents will not have the ability or technology to hunt you down and find the truth. I could log on at Loose Change and call myself Anna Kournikova or Wally Schirra, and only someone deeply conversant with their lives and careers could prove me wrong.

Or I could just make up a fictional identity...I used to do that when baiting Nigerian 419 spam scammers. I was "D.W. Grifter, pornographer extraordinaire," and "Ashley Farnes-Barnes, British Secret Service," and "Sheikh Ratel en Roll, special adviser to Ayatollah Rock en Rollah," and even "Boris Badunov, Pottsylvanian Secret Police." The Nigerian jerks bought it. My wife told me to cut it out.

Over at The History Channel, where switchblades are the rule, flamers would impersonate their enemies, adopting the handles of their opponents, with a period or a comma added, to fool the unwary. One extreme nutter from Canada would not take banning seriously, and he kept returning a couple of hours later, under a new version of his handle, "Confucius."

He spouted semi-literate anti-Semitic garbage and cut-and-paste copies of "Red Symphony," a Falangist postwar forgery of a "confession" by one of Stalin's purge victims, Christian Rakovsky, that somehow proved that Communism was financed by Wall Street capitalists. He was ignorant as well as illiterate, so he'd get derided for both. He lacked a sense of humor (like most fanatics) and would fire back with obscenities and demands that his opponents kill themselves.

After 54 identities, THC's lawyers hunted him down (I did a lot of reporting of him) and made him go away for good.

I had it the other way around...I was accused in that same forum of impersonating people and fomenting flame wars, and people were slamming me and my character for a year. I contacted them to say they were attacking an innocent man. They demanded proof I wasn't doing the flames. That was tough to do. I finally rattled off a series of dates and places I had been where I did not have access to a computer...like a trip I took with my wife on my birthday weekend to New Hampshire, going to baseball games at Yankee Stadium, and Sunday dinners with my in-laws.

(Let's see, I was sitting in the mezzannine at Shea Stadium with my scorecard in one hand, my soda in the other, and with my other two hands, I was sending flame e-mails with my laptop. Right. Or I celebrated my birthday by waging a flame war from the front seat of our brand-new Toyota Forerunner. That's right, I did the navigation with two hands holding a map and the flame was with the computer implanted in my skull.)

After I gave up all this stuff about my personal life to this arrogant interlocutor, he then had the nerve to ask me to help him by asking the real flamer to stop what he was doing. This guy went to the Leo Durocher School of Nerve, but I did it anyway, as a gesture of goodwill. After a year of being assailed on an hourly basis at THC, the attacks stopped. I still hate this guy's guts, even though he apologized and has behaved civilly and supportively since then.

But my point is that these folks can say they are anyone and anything they want...and how do you prove it? And how do you prove you are what you not?

The lack of accountability on the web is the best thing to happen to bullies since the invention of school lunch money.

Gravy
13th July 2006, 07:52 AM
Originally Posted by LondonEye at LC forum:
I had a debate with the infamous "Gravy" regarding the demolititons, there was never a constructive centerview, he would only see it from his side, while we tried to discuss the science.
I have to admit that I was a real greenhorn and in over my head in my one debate at LC. In hindsight, four days was a long time for their mods to put up with the foolishness I was spouting then. Only now, after a few months of reading up on the subject, am I beginning to grasp the depth of LondonEye's scientific knowledge.

Posted: Apr 5 2006, 03:52 PM (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1765&view=findpost&p=3022394)

Hi Gravy

Those planes were guided exactly where they wanted them, They knew exactly what floors they needed to hit, this was probably aided with laser and visual guidance.

I have looked closely at the WTC1 demo (there was an excellent thread about somewhere).

If you look carefully, there is a mini demo job at the top of the tower, starts several floors below impact point and in a straight line, this is a normal bottom up demolition, this is immediately followed by a top down demolition.

Gravy
13th July 2006, 08:13 AM
But my point is that these folks can say they are anyone and anything they want...and how do you prove it? And how do you prove you are what you not?
I'm all for anonymity for the average internet Joe or Jane, but I think when someone claims expertise in the field being discussed, as JohnDoeX does in some of his posts, they should submit their credentials. It's unprofessional to make others play a guessing game.

WildCat
13th July 2006, 09:04 AM
link?
I thought abby or someone would bring it up in the boxcutter thread, but so far not.

WildCat
13th July 2006, 09:06 AM
JDX also hinted that it should be relatively easy to figure out who he is, given enough persistence. My first guess is Nila Sagadevan:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm
I don't think that's him. JDX, I'm pretty sure, is American and living in New York (though apparently not in NYC).

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 09:07 AM
I thought abby or someone would bring it up in the boxcutter thread, but so far not.
no matter.

John would probably reply with a couple of lol's and some emoticons and brush it all off.

Belz...
13th July 2006, 09:11 AM
In other words: The typical testoterone driven male doing a Tarzan impersonation right up to the minute when it gets serious. Then they hide behind mommys skirts complaining about "the big, bad meany".

Replace that last part by "but mum, they CHEATED!" and you've pretty much got it.

In my, granted limited, experience, its usually not the ones screaming the loudest about "I'm the Big Bad Male of the Species" which wins a confrontation, but the silent ones which stands back and analyzes the situation a bit first. Usually because they know when they are in over their heads.

Nah! It's ALL about who people THINK is the strongest.

Fact is, that if you know how to wield your weapon of choice, in this case the boxcutters, anything can be deadly. Even a teaspoon. As long as it's made from metal.....ETA: the spoon that is.

You can kill someone with a teacup, as Riddick showed.

dubfan
13th July 2006, 09:15 AM
I don't think that's him. JDX, I'm pretty sure, is American and living in New York (though apparently not in NYC).

Agreed. JDX is on the record at LC stating that Nila's "ground effect" claim (a/c with high wing-loading traveling at high speed can't fly low enough, long enough, to hit the Pentagon) is nonsense.

Belz...
13th July 2006, 09:17 AM
You didn't know that?

Lots of people think Alex Jones is a Zionest also, and believe the movie "Loose Change" is actually a Jewish plot to steer away from the real people behind the 9/11 attacks: TEH JOOOOS. Hell, I've read some message boards about a month ago accusing Dylan Avery and the rest of the company to be all Jewish.

These idiots can't even agree with one another, and we are supposed to take them seriously.

If the "zionists" really exist and really are out to conquer the world, they're probably never going to reach their goals. They've been at it, what, for 3000 years ?

Kiwiwriter
13th July 2006, 09:29 AM
I'm all for anonymity for the average internet Joe or Jane, but I think when someone claims expertise in the field being discussed, as JohnDoeX does in some of his posts, they should submit their credentials. It's unprofessional to make others play a guessing game.


Yes, if you're Joe Schmedlap, you have a right to privacy and avoiding attacks like I suffered. But if you set yourself up as an oracle, you should provide the basis for it.

Most of these web trolls who set themselves up as gods do so with a heavy dose of condescension and contempt for their audience.

Kiwiwriter
13th July 2006, 09:40 AM
If the "zionists" really exist and really are out to conquer the world, they're probably never going to reach their goals. They've been at it, what, for 3000 years ?

That's the thing that annoys me the most. Conspiracy theorists and fanatics are always painting the situation as being the edge of disaster. Humanity stands at the brink. The final battle between good and evil is about to happen. The Zionists are just about to conquer us.

Well, if so, why the deuce haven't they done it already? They had 3,000 years and two World Wars in which to do it in, and they still haven't finished the job! What the heck, the Olympics takes two weeks, the World Series a week and a half, and they built the Brooklyn Bridge in less than 10 years. If the Zionists own the banks, the newspapers, the atomic bomb, the presidents, the Queen, and Aqueduct Racetrack, why can't they polish off a few dopey Skinheads? :boggled:

WildCat
13th July 2006, 09:58 AM
If the "zionists" really exist and really are out to conquer the world, they're probably never going to reach their goals. They've been at it, what, for 3000 years ?
Baby steps and patience, Belz...

Abbyas
13th July 2006, 12:28 PM
JDX also hinted that it should be relatively easy to figure out who he is, given enough persistence. My first guess is Nila Sagadevan:

Well, I did a google search "airline pilot" +"truth movement" and the guy above and Glen Shoobyshooby Something popped up. I cut and paste two quotes from those two and asked JDX if either were him, but he said no.

Gravy
13th July 2006, 01:09 PM
and they built the Brooklyn Bridge in less than 10 years.
14. I take my beloved Brooklyn Bridge trivia very seriously.

p.s. Construction was delayed for over a year because not enough explosives were available to fill the insides of the towers. Construction resumed after Israel Abromowitz invented Christomitey, an inexpensive high explosive made from virgins' blood and the bones of murdered Christian babies.

Regnad Kcin
13th July 2006, 01:35 PM
...Most of these web trolls who set themselves up as gods do so with a heavy dose of condescension and contempt for their audience.Now, now. No sense anymore in talking about Christophera.

steve s
13th July 2006, 01:45 PM
OMFG they're in Strangelove territory now.

Somebody over there is on about fluouridated water (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8039&view=findpost&p=6024725).

From that thread, a pearl of wisdom from Datars...


Critical thinking is Horse ****.

Use common sense, that all it takes. I reach people @ 99% to 100% showing 911

Steve S.

CurtC
13th July 2006, 02:04 PM
Here, let me complete what Datars really means:
From that thread, a pearl of wisdom from Datars...
If the goal is to get someone to believe that 9/11 was in inside job, Critical thinking is Horse ****.

Use common sense, that all it takes. I reach people @ 99% to 100% showing 911

Blackwell
13th July 2006, 02:05 PM
An interesting article on cnn.com today, about the conspiracies surrounding the TWA 800 disaster - just replace "Salinger" with "Fetzer" or "Avery":

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/12/twa.conspiracy/index.html

Hutch
13th July 2006, 02:18 PM
OK, chucksheen has convinced me he is no more than 13 years old.

See his post in this thread.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8085

His second post, the fourth one in the thread.

I am forebearing to post what I think right now because mr. supermod would ban me for certain..

Kent1
13th July 2006, 02:21 PM
A new interesting article has come out by Mark Ferran.

Its a response to various claims made by Steven Jones.
I believe its worth checking out.

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/50300.php

Titled
WTC IRON BURNS!!!
A small highlight

I found this children's educational webpage that further illustrates that "Professor Jones" (among the "9-11 Scholars") is an incompetent ignoramus because he ignores the scientifically provable (or disprovable) fact that Iron metal itself burns, and that when amassed in large piles can ignite fires (and can even melt itself). The article discusses child-safe experiments observing a very slow oxidation of iron (rusting at room temperature), but also mentions:
"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/TryThis/h3TT1004_ironBurns.asp?subTitleID=159

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 02:35 PM
OK, chucksheen has convinced me he is no more than 13 years old.

See his post in this thread.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8085

His second post, the fourth one in the thread.

I am forebearing to post what I think right now because mr. supermod would ban me for certain..I would have no such concerns pointing out what an idiot he is. But you are one of the few left to carry the torch :D

Speaking of idiot, did you see jenabells comment about Sagan and the baloney detection kit when c0rbin pointed him to it? The book is 14.95.......the guys has been dead for almost ten years now.........I do not feel like supporting that sort of thingAt least he finally realized Sagan was dead, up until this point, his comments about him indicated he had no clue who he was.

Kent1
13th July 2006, 02:38 PM
He said "I've never heard of ordnance until now, thanks.":jaw-dropp

Brainster
13th July 2006, 02:47 PM
OK, chucksheen has convinced me he is no more than 13 years old.

He has the intelligence and accumulated wisdom of a 13-year-old, but my guess is he's in his mid-40s (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4496099817614175808&q=Data+R+S).

Yes, the video says DataRS, but that's just another one of Chuckie baby's Sock Puppet names. Note that the cameraman refers to him as Chuck. I can back this up with further confirmation if desired; I worked this out a month or so ago. I think he's whistle-blower Gypsy Taub's main squeeze.

The_Fire
13th July 2006, 02:58 PM
He said "I've never heard of ordnance until now, thanks.":jaw-dropp

That one got me as well despite a lack of military service....Only the boys get that arround here......And the volunteer thing for women weren't arround when I was 18 so.......

Class
13th July 2006, 03:26 PM
He has the intelligence and accumulated wisdom of a 13-year-old, but my guess is he's in his mid-40s (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4496099817614175808&q=Data+R+S).

Yes, the video says DataRS, but that's just another one of Chuckie baby's Sock Puppet names. Note that the cameraman refers to him as Chuck. I can back this up with further confirmation if desired; I worked this out a month or so ago. I think he's whistle-blower Gypsy Taub's main squeeze.
I asked him if he was chuck sheen around two weeks ago. He said no, his real name is Chuck so that is why it says "DataRS (ChucK)" in his movie decriptions.

apathoid
13th July 2006, 03:50 PM
JDX also hinted that it should be relatively easy to figure out who he is, given enough persistence. My first guess is Nila Sagadevan

Agreed. JDX is on the record at LC stating that Nila's "ground effect" claim (a/c with high wing-loading traveling at high speed can't fly low enough, long enough, to hit the Pentagon) is nonsense.

I don't think that's him. JDX, I'm pretty sure, is American and living in New York (though apparently not in NYC).

Nila Sagadevan from what I understand lives in California and has claimed to be living in the US for 30+ years. Its my belief, since reading his "Impossibilty of Flying a Heavy Aircraft....." piece, that Nila is a fraud. He claims to be a professional pilot, aeronautical engineer, communications consultant and author(it seems he has published a few books). If he is indeed a pilot, he must be licensed under a different name. The FAA maintains a full database of certified airmen and A&Ps. Every pilot and mechanic I've ever queried returned a record. Any number of misspellings of Nila Sagadevan return no record in the database. If he is a pilot, his certificate has been yanked because they do not expire....I've emailed him and asked for his explanation but didnt get a reply.

For what its worth, JohndoeX sent me a PM through the LC forums stating his former airline. They went belly up earlier this year, and I'm thinking he was most likely a ramper. He's claimed to have flown the 727 and I had a quiz ready for him, but I decided it would be a pointless exercise as he will undoubtedly come up with an excuse similar to the "I never claimed to be working" one.

Mongrel
13th July 2006, 03:53 PM
New subforum at LC (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=36)
Nice to see Chucksheen is keeping up his normal standards of scepticality in the debate
I am not grasping for straws you just have selective consciousness.

Polaris
13th July 2006, 04:00 PM
Over at The History Channel, where switchblades are the rule, flamers would impersonate their enemies, adopting the handles of their opponents, with a period or a comma added, to fool the unwary. One extreme nutter from Canada would not take banning seriously, and he kept returning a couple of hours later, under a new version of his handle, "Confucius."


You still go there? Damn, you've got more patience than I do. So they finally 86'ed him eh? He never did answer my question if baseball was wrong because a man with four balls can't walk.

The THC forum lost it a few years ago when they started changing formats every 6 months for the hell of it. I think the number of users dropped by 90%.

Kent1
13th July 2006, 05:19 PM
It seems Jones is leaning away from the thermite box/cylinder and leaning towards sol-gels.

http://911blogger.com/

"Note also that while I'm leaning now to the use of thermite-containing sol-gels, it is possible that cylinders containing thermite as you have found patents for could have [also] been used. Finding such a cylinder would indeed be a dramatic proof in itself, I believe."

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 05:33 PM
Gentlemen... start your engines...

JamesB,

Professor Jones has expressed an interest in joining this forum, and although he does not generally respond to ad hominem attacks, such as the many expressed in this forum (and in similar forums, which are primarily dedicated to the support of the government's conspiracy theory), he stated that he would be interested in reasoned scientific debate.

http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?t=15&start=15&mforum=911studies

He won't be here, but he'll be out in the open... sort of.

Just remember no ad hominem stuff. Jones can make up stories about being chased by the feds, he can claim to be a devout mormon one minute but ignore his associates attacks against members of his religion the next, but WE have to be careful not to offend his tender sensibilities.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 05:35 PM
Hola good friends....

Lets start rippin this traitorous scum bag. He obviously suffers from dementia, I say we take that angle.

Lets show the woo's a thing err two.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 SURE (http://members.iinet.net.au/~deforrest/stubblebine.wmv)

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 05:51 PM
Hola good friends....

Lets start rippin this traitorous scum bag. He obviously suffers from dementia, I say we take that angle.

Lets show the woo's a thing err two.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 SURE (http://members.iinet.net.au/~deforrest/stubblebine.wmv)

I don't know what's funnier about the good generals remarks in that video you linked.

That he claims he can measure objects in photographs that are occluded by thick black smoke, or that he thinks a 13 foot wide 757 fueselage won't fit in the hole he thinks he saw.

A double loss for the truthers, try again Jennybelle.

Donks
13th July 2006, 05:51 PM
Hola good friends....

Lets start rippin this traitorous scum bag. He obviously suffers from dementia, I say we take that angle.

Lets show the woo's a thing err two.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 SURE (http://members.iinet.net.au/~deforrest/stubblebine.wmv)
The man is entitled to his opinion. Given his evidence (can be summed up in "I can't believe a plane crashed in the pentagon and made a hole that size"), that's all it is.

Arkan_Wolfshade
13th July 2006, 05:52 PM
Hola good friends....

Lets start rippin this traitorous scum bag. He obviously suffers from dementia, I say we take that angle.

Lets show the woo's a thing err two.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 SURE (http://members.iinet.net.au/~deforrest/stubblebine.wmv)

You still don't quite get it do you? Even if I didn't think your post was missing its [sarcasm] tags, it's still not how we approach things around here. Launching into ad hom attacks against the speaker in the film accomplishes nothing.

Showing that his claim of rank in the military is uncited/corroborated and that he provides nothing more than his opinion on the size of the hole in the Pentagon in relation to the plane does however; because those are non-scientific, logically fallacious arguments.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 05:53 PM
I don't know what's funnier about the good generals remarks in that video you linked.

That he claims he can measure objects in photographs that are occluded by thick black smoke, or that he thinks a 13 foot wide 757 fueselage won't fit in the hole he thinks he saw.

A double loss for the truthers, try again Jennybelle.
Well that was his job for 30 years....but this is not my point, lets make him look like an idiot. Anyone have any dirt? Lets look up his military record I am sure he has some skeletons.

Donks
13th July 2006, 05:54 PM
Well that was his job for 30 years....
Appeal to authority.
but this is not my point, lets make him look like an idiot. Anyone have any dirt? Lets look up his military record I am sure he has some skeletons.
Ad hominem.

Kent1
13th July 2006, 05:55 PM
Hola good friends....

Lets start rippin this traitorous scum bag. He obviously suffers from dementia, I say we take that angle.

Lets show the woo's a thing err two.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 SURE (http://members.iinet.net.au/~deforrest/stubblebine.wmv)
Actually many CT'ers from 911blogger aren't big on using this guy because of his wild psychokinetic and UFO beliefs.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=general+stubblebine+psychokinetic+UFOs&btnG=Search

WildCat
13th July 2006, 05:55 PM
Hola good friends....

Lets start rippin this traitorous scum bag. He obviously suffers from dementia, I say we take that angle.

Lets show the woo's a thing err two.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4 SURE (http://members.iinet.net.au/~deforrest/stubblebine.wmv)
No, nothing about him says "woo". BTW, look up "remote viewing"... nope, no woo to see here... :rolleyes:

SBrown
13th July 2006, 05:57 PM
You still don't quite get it do you? Even if I didn't think your post was missing its [sarcasm] tags, it's still not how we approach things around here. Launching into ad hom attacks against the speaker in the film accomplishes nothing.

Showing that his claim of rank in the military is uncited/corroborated and that he provides nothing more than his opinion on the size of the hole in the Pentagon in relation to the plane does however; because those are non-scientific, logically fallacious arguments.
Wait am I not looking at a whole page here of attacks and attempts to discredit? :jaw-dropp

**edit: Page before....sorry.

WildCat
13th July 2006, 06:01 PM
Wait am I not looking at a whole page here of attacks and attempts to discredit? :jaw-dropp

**edit: Page before....sorry.
Any structural engineers or demolition esperts on the CT side yet jenabelle?

Seriously, do you know how far out there this guy is?

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:04 PM
Any structural engineers or demolition esperts on the CT side yet jenabelle?

Seriously, do you know how far out there this guy is?

Is this an answer?:confused:

Blackwell
13th July 2006, 06:28 PM
Is this an answer?:confused:


No, it's a question - you can tell by the squiggly mark with the dot at the end.

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 06:32 PM
Good evening jenabell

When you get a chance, can you ask johndoeX to explain how he's been

in the business flying for over 20 years.http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=8013&st=90


When he was in middle school i think when it happenedit being Iran Contra - which was made public in 1986 - 20 years ago.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7903

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:32 PM
No, it's a question - you can tell by the squiggly mark with the dot at the end.
Can you show me an example because I thought for sure he had quoted me.......was this just for effect?

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:33 PM
Good evening jenabell

When you get a chance, can you ask johndoeX to explain how he's been

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=8013&st=90


When he was it being Iran Contra - which was made public in 1986 - 20 years ago.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7903
Ad hominem.
Next.

**Edit...though I have to give it to you DJ at least you can get my name right.

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:37 PM
Ad hominem.
Next.

**Edit...though I have to give it to you DJ at least you can get my name right.
That's not an adhom.

Hawk one
13th July 2006, 06:37 PM
Not an ad hominem. I think you need to find out what that means.

What you are being asked is to find out why someone makes two claims that are mutually exlusive. And it's the mutual exlusivity that's being attacked here, not the poster.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:38 PM
What does "DONKS" mean?

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:40 PM
Not an ad hominem. I think you need to find out what that means.

What you are being asked is to find out why someone makes two claims that are mutually exlusive. And it's the mutual exlusivity that's being attacked here, not the poster.

Two claims? Is it? I am not him but is it really two claims?

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:41 PM
What does "DONKS" mean?
It means "he who is always right."

Pardalis
13th July 2006, 06:42 PM
What does Jenabell mean?

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:42 PM
Two claims? Is it? I am not him but is it really two claims?
Yes.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:43 PM
It means "he who is always right."
Awesome in what dialect?

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:44 PM
Yes.
Explain.

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:44 PM
Awesome in what dialect?
Donksian, of course. Curiously, it means the same in Donkese and Donkish.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:45 PM
Donksian, of course. Curiously, it means the same in Donkese and Donkish.
Darn I thought it was maybe in WOO. I am trying to learn that right now.

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:45 PM
Explain.
"Yes", as in "affirmative". The term is used to express agreement. In this particular case: yes, those were two claims.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:46 PM
"Yes", as in "affirmative". The term is used to express agreement. In this particular case: yes, those were two claims.
How?

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:47 PM
Darn I thought it was maybe in WOO. I am trying to learn that right now.
Seems to me you speak WOO fluently. In fact, I thought it was your mother tongue.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:47 PM
Seems to me you speak WOO fluently. In fact, I thought it was your mother tongue.
No dun jus heard bout it jus now.

Donks
13th July 2006, 06:52 PM
How?
First claim:
I said i been in the business flying for over 20 years.
Second claim:
I was in middle school i think when it happened

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:52 PM
First claim:

Second claim:
OK I will check.

Pardalis
13th July 2006, 06:55 PM
What is your purpose here Jenabrown?

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:56 PM
Second acusation first:


I was in middle school i think when it happened


true right here:


I was in middle school i think when it happened and havent even looked it up with all the research


First link does not work.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 06:57 PM
What is your purpose here Jenabrown?
To answer all these kiddie questions apparently.....I feel like I am in middle school all over again.

WildCat
13th July 2006, 06:58 PM
What is your purpose here Jenabrown?
To gloat over a former general who believes that no plane hit the Pentagon. Apparently he didn't know what a certified nutcase this guy was, so now he's just here spinning his wheels trying to figure out what to do next.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:00 PM
To gloat over a former general who believes that no plane hit the Pentagon. Apparently he didn't know what a certified nutcase this guy was, so now he's just here spinning his wheels trying to figure out what to do next.
ad hominem.....dang do you not know your own rules?

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:01 PM
Second acusation first:
It's not an accusation, it's a direct quote from that person.
First link does not work.
Here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8013&st=90) you go.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:03 PM
It's not an accusation, it's a direct quote from that person.

Here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8013&st=90) you go.
OK checking now.

Pardalis
13th July 2006, 07:04 PM
ad hominem.....dang do you not know your own rules?

No ad hominem, just an hypothesis after careful observation of the behavior of the subject.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:05 PM
It's not an accusation, it's a direct quote from that person.

Here (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8013&st=90) you go.

Do you mean this quote?


I didnt say "airline pilot" for over 20 years. I said i been in the business flying for over 20 years.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:07 PM
No ad hominem, just an hypothesis after careful observation of the behavior of the subject.
OK thanks pard....are we friends again?:catfight:

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:08 PM
Do you mean this quote?
Let's assume the answer is yes, since it was not my quesiton originally.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:11 PM
Let's assume the answer is yes, since it was not my quesiton originally.
OK so what is your problem with it?

WildCat
13th July 2006, 07:16 PM
ad hominem.....dang do you not know your own rules?
No, the ad hom was against Stubblebine. The part refering to you was speculation.

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:16 PM
OK so what is your problem with it?
I have no problem with it. I am a bit curious, if this person was in the business since he was in middle school.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:17 PM
I have no problem with it. I am a bit curious, if this person was in the business since he was in middle school.
Business of what, flying?

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:19 PM
Business of what, flying?
Yes.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:20 PM
Yes.
OK I will try and ask him if you guys cannot. Can I ask why this is so important?

Pardalis
13th July 2006, 07:21 PM
I think Jenabrown wants to reach her 300th post with this question alone.

(please don't aswer this post Jenabrown, answer Donks instead)

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:22 PM
I feel like I am being used to pass notes in study hall.:crowded:

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 07:27 PM
I feel like I am being used to pass notes in study hall.:crowded:

Since several of us have been banned from LC forums for winning arguments with JDX specifically (or you), bringing up this juicy little tidbit over there would just get us banned again.

You're here now, so you're a convenient messenger.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:28 PM
Since several of us have been banned from LC forums for winning arguments with JDX specifically (or you), bringing up this juicy little tidbit over there would just get us banned again.

You're here now, so you're a convenient messenger.
You have proof of that claim?

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:28 PM
OK I will try and ask him if you guys cannot. Can I ask why this is so important?
Ask DavidJames. I have no idea who the peron who made the claims is, or what other claims he's made. I was just claryfing the question for you, since you seemed to be having inordinate amounts of trouble with it.

TjW
13th July 2006, 07:28 PM
OK I will try and ask him if you guys cannot. Can I ask why this is so important?
Well, it might not be mutually exclusive at all. One must be eighteen years of age to take the practical test for a commercial pilot certificate in the US. I suppose it's barely possible that he was a little "slow" academically and still was not in high school by that age. It seems doubtful that someone like that would pass the written, though.

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 07:30 PM
Hey jenny.

You may want to tell john that:

1. I never questioned when he "can question my govt"
2. I never said anything about him and any medical issues
3. I never said I wouldn't read his posts.

That's just three examples of outright, boldface lies he has told. Of course he could prove me wrong and find the sources. He already backed off on #3, by the way.

John makes ***** up. Those are three examples of it that are easily proven. John is embarrassed because I called out his pathetic life sitting in front of a computer 15 hours a day posting on a loon board, as the chief contributing loon. He's embarrassed (as you should be) that he backed your pathetic attempt to refute my data.

He wants to get my IP banned. Now think about that for a minute. He cries his crocodile tears about the big bad U.S. government taking away his rights. Is your mind able to grasp the hypocrisy? I know johnedoe's won't.

John gets his panties in a bunch if someone treads on his rights but he thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Please, spare me the fact that he may not have used those words, but there nothing in his 2000+ posts to suggest otherwise. The problem is he's not man enough to admit it.

I have respect for anyone who is willing to take a stand and back it up with evidence. johndoeX as done neither. killtown is the most creative loon at LC, I don't think there is a CT he doesn't believe in but I have more respect for him that john. At least killtown takes a stand. He doesn't hide behind vague innuendo.

Thanks for your time jen and tell john I said hi.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:31 PM
Ask DavidJames. I have no idea who the peron who made the claims is, or what other claims he's made. I was just claryfing the question for you, since you seemed to be having inordinate amounts of trouble with it.

You mean I went through all this crap for a question that David James wants answered who, by the way, has a account over there?

You gotta be kidding me, is he 10 years old? Have him ask it himself....

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:33 PM
Hey jenny.

You may want to tell john that:

1. I never questioned when he "can question my govt"
2. I never said anything about him and any medical issues
3. I never said I wouldn't read his posts.

That's just three examples of outright, boldface lies he has told. Of course he could prove me wrong and find the sources. He already backed off on #3, by the way.

John makes ***** up. Those are three examples of it that are easily proven. John is embarrassed because I called out his pathetic life sitting in front of a computer 15 hours a day posting on a loon board, as the chief contributing loon. He's embarrassed (as you should be) that he backed your pathetic attempt to refute my data.

He wants to get my IP banned. Now think about that for a minute. He cries his crocodile tears about the big bad U.S. government taking away his rights. Is your mind able to grasp the hypocrisy? I know johnedoe's won't.

John gets his panties in a bunch if someone treads on his rights but he thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Please, spare me the fact that he may not have used those words, but there nothing in his 2000+ posts to suggest otherwise. The problem is he's not man enough to admit it.

I have respect for anyone who is willing to take a stand and back it up with evidence. johndoeX as done neither. killtown is the most creative loon at LC, I don't think there is a CT he doesn't believe in but I have more respect for him that john. At least killtown takes a stand. He doesn't hide behind vague innuendo.

Thanks for your time jen and tell john I said hi.
You have issues psycho......DJ meet ignore.....ADIOS:jaw-dropp

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:36 PM
You mean I went through all this crap for a question
that David James wants answered who, by the way, has a account over there?
What crap? And, assuming DavidJames has an active account over ther (one that hasn't been banned by the mods), then the answer it yes,.
You gotta be kidding me, is he 10 years old? Have him ask it himself....
I don't control DavidJames, or you. And isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to complain about being asked to pass a message, and then asking me to pass a message?

Regnad Kcin
13th July 2006, 07:36 PM
Here it is again, folks, one of my greatest hits...

Dear alternative conspiracy theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RK

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:38 PM
What crap? And, assuming DavidJames has an active account over ther (one that hasn't been banned by the mods), then the answer it yes,.

I don't control DavidJames, or you. And isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to complain about being asked to pass a message, and then asking me to pass a message?

Actually I just figured he would read it, but the man (or boy) scares me because he is really not a stable person. I have him on ignore.

Pardalis
13th July 2006, 07:40 PM
ADIOS:jaw-dropp

geggy? :eek:

Stellafane
13th July 2006, 07:43 PM
geggy? :eek:

...can it be???

Actually, I think not. Geggy struck me as slightly dumber but also a bit more mature (words I never conceived I'd ever write).

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:43 PM
geggy? :eek:
Come on Pard, you are one of the level headed ones here, you can see that DavidJames has gone off the deep end. You guys may want to give him vacation or something. He needs some time to clear his head and not think of the woos for a bit. I am really worried about him.

Donks
13th July 2006, 07:43 PM
Actually I just figured he would read it, but the man (or boy) scares me because he is really not a stable person. I have him on ignore.
Do you have any evidence of his stability , or lack thereof?

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 07:46 PM
You have proof of that claim?

Yes, loads.

Thank you for asking.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:46 PM
Do you have any evidence of his stability , or lack thereof?
Biggest sign....he is completely obsessed with JDX.

Over the top.......:jaw-dropp

Pardalis
13th July 2006, 07:48 PM
Come on Pard, you are one of the level headed ones here, you can see that DavidJames has gone off the deep end.

Thanks... I guess...

To my knowledge, DavidJames never spammed the board and his post have always been on topic.

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 07:51 PM
Biggest sign....he is completely obsessed with JDX.

Over the top.......:jaw-dropp

He may have us there.

The "truth" movement may not have anyone who knows anything about structural engineering. But if a "truth" seeker knows anything, it's "obsession".

Abbyas
13th July 2006, 07:51 PM
I asked jdx about flying for 20 years and the iran contra scandal/middle school thing.

He says that he was wrong about the iran contra time line.

It's definitely possible, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I tell ya, imagine if a member of the govt said he was "mistaken". The CTers wouldn't have it.

He is also very excited to read his name on these message boards.

Considering all the time he fights for the truth by "zinging" people on a message board, it makes sense that he adores the attention.

Never fails to amaze me how JREFers rank more attention than the treasonous government.

SRW
13th July 2006, 07:54 PM
Biggest sign....he is completely obsessed with JDX.

Over the top.......:jaw-dropp

Obsession? Ah, how many post are you going to make about him?

WildCat
13th July 2006, 07:54 PM
Well, it might not be mutually exclusive at all. One must be eighteen years of age to take the practical test for a commercial pilot certificate in the US. I suppose it's barely possible that he was a little "slow" academically and still was not in high school by that age. It seems doubtful that someone like that would pass the written, though.
"Middle school" is 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, sometimes just 7th and 8th grades though this would be called "junior high" in those places. 8th graders are generally 13 years old maximum, unless you started school late or were held back.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 07:55 PM
Obsession? Ah, how many post are you going to make about him?
Let me just ask you one question.....did I ever bring the guy up.....one time? I am answering questions that I was asked. I do not even know him.

WildCat
13th July 2006, 07:57 PM
The "truth" movement may not have anyone who knows anything about structural engineering.
Hey, they just picked up a remote viewing guru. Won't be long now for them to unravel the whole nefarious plot, the Zionists/Illuminati/Bilderbergers/Rothschilds/Globalists/Skull and Bones/Freemasons/NWO must be shaking in their boots now!

Stellafane
13th July 2006, 07:58 PM
Actually I just figured he would read it, but the man (or boy) scares me because he is really not a stable person. I have him on ignore.

Hi SBrown. Personally, DavidJames never struck me as remotely unstable, but maybe your definition of "unstable" is a bit higher than mine. If so, where would you rate johndoex? Because his behavior is frankly far stranger than DavidJames.

For example, jdx is almost certainly a liar. Yes, that's a harsh assessment, but he simply cannot have been a pilot for 20 years as he claims, and have been in middle school 20 years ago as he also claims. (And please spare me that "working pilot" crap; that's just weasel words -- he either is one or isn't.) And he certainly doesn't write like any pilot I'd trust to fly a plane in which I'm riding -- indeed, he doesn't even write like someone who has finished high school, or is capable of reading an instrument panel. And he routinely writes a staggering 100 posts a day! Even you must see that as weirdly excessive. (I'm a freelance writer who works at home, and thus have far more opportunity to post than most, and do so at what I consider a relatively high rate -- and yet I average less than 3.5 daily posts. I can't even imagine writing 100 and having any kind of other life going on.)

So I must again ask: If you consider DavidJames unstable, where would you place johndoex?

SBrown
13th July 2006, 08:02 PM
Hi SBrown. Personally, DavidJames never struck me as remotely unstable, but maybe your definition of "unstable" is a bit higher than mine. If so, where would you rate johndoex? Because his behavior is frankly far stranger than DavidJames.

For example, jdx is almost certainly a liar. Yes, that's a harsh assessment, but he simply cannot have been a pilot for 20 years as he claims, and have been in middle school 20 years ago as he also claims. (And please spare me that "working pilot" crap; that's just weasel words -- he either is one or isn't.) And he certainly doesn't write like any pilot I'd trust to fly a plane in which I'm riding -- indeed, he doesn't even write like someone who has finished high school, or is capable of reading an instrument panel. And he routinely writes a staggering 100 posts a day! Even you must see that as weirdly excessive. (I'm a freelance writer who works at home, and thus have far more opportunity to post than most, and do so at what I consider a relatively high rate -- and yet I average less than 3.5 daily posts. I can't even imagine writing 100 and having any kind of other life going on.)

So I must again ask: If you consider DavidJames unstable, where would you place johndoex?


And what do you write? What was the last thing you published. How is my writing skulls? My teacher said they wuz pretty good. :D

delphi_ote
13th July 2006, 08:03 PM
I hate to say this, but this thread is getting as bad as some of the tripe over in the P.C.E.S.I. section of the forum. Can we maybe try to pull out of this tailspin?

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 08:05 PM
I asked jdx about flying for 20 years and the iran contra scandal/middle school thing.

He says that he was wrong about the iran contra time line.

It's definitely possible, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I tell ya, imagine if a member of the govt said he was "mistaken". The CTers wouldn't have it.

He is also very excited to read his name on these message boards.

Considering all the time he fights for the truth by "zinging" people on a message board, it makes sense that he adores the attention.

Never fails to amaze me how JREFers rank more attention than the treasonous government.

Hmmm... Miss Abby A. Scott of New York City, eh?

Does anyone else find it amusing that an attractive young woman in her twenties (a prime target for predators) has no fear of posting her name, location and picture on the web, but a guy who claims to be an airline pilot who can take down knife weilding terrorists is deathly afraid of revealing anything?

Stellafane
13th July 2006, 08:10 PM
And what do you write? What was the last thing you published. How is my writing skulls? My teacher said they wuz pretty good. :D

I write on a fairly wide variety of topics. The last thing I had published was a book on upgrading to the latest version of a popular business software product. It's now available on Amazon. I'm currently working on a companion book, to be published later this year.

From what I can see, your writing skills are actually reasonably competent. Unfortunately, I believe you writing suffers from your overbearing sarcastic attitude, which frankly does your cause zero good. If you would just trust your ability to communicate and lose the 'tude, you'd be way better off.

Now could you answer my question about jdx?

Abbyas
13th July 2006, 08:11 PM
Hmmm... Miss Abby A. Scott of New York City, eh?

Does anyone else find it amusing that an attractive young woman in her twenties (a prime target for predators) has no fear of posting her name, location and picture on the web, but a guy who claims to be an airline pilot who can take down knife weilding terrorists is deathly afraid of revealing anything?

And in actuality, I'm a 55 year old man. Hooray the internet!

I hate to say this, but this thread is getting as bad as some of the tripe over in the P.C.E.S.I. section of the forum. Can we maybe try to pull out of this tailspin?

You're right. It's battling message boards. I told a friend recently about the absence of the djlegacy/gravy fight... "There was this one guy from one message board and he was supposed to go over and debate this other guy from this other message board because the second guy was banned from the first message board, but the first guy never showed up."

He told me it was time to turn off the computer.

hellaeon
13th July 2006, 08:13 PM
Oi Jenabell,

Im asking a proper question here.

Do you realise the difference between the LC forum and this one?

Do you notice that what the LC forum campaigns against - opression, dictatorship and suppression of the 'real' world - is exactly how that board is conducted? Opposing views are banned without warning, people mocked purely if they state actual facts to an arguement or a different opinion on the political nature of this whole thing.

Over here your free to post your opinion right/wrong/confrontational or not and at times you have done this and felt no wrath from over zealous administrators. There is some angst most times between people who disagree but everyone tends to smarten up and talk sensibly.

I have noticed long time posters who simply cannot agree with hardly anyone here and have what I consider a crazy world view but thats the beauty of a real world.

You cant just make an outlandish claim and expect people to just go with it. Carl sagan springs to mind : "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

That movement makes so many claims and immediately hangs anyone who disagrees. Im suprised the guys dont write in Newspeak on that board.

Cheers

SBrown
13th July 2006, 08:17 PM
Oi Jenabell,

Im asking a proper question here.

Do you realise the difference between the LC forum and this one?

Do you notice that what the LC forum campaigns against - opression, dictatorship and suppression of the 'real' world - is exactly how that board is conducted? Opposing views are banned without warning, people mocked purely if they state actual facts to an arguement or a different opinion on the political nature of this whole thing.

Over here your free to post your opinion right/wrong/confrontational or not and at times you have done this and felt no wrath from over zealous administrators. There is some angst most times between people who disagree but everyone tends to smarten up and talk sensibly.

I have noticed long time posters who simply cannot agree with hardly anyone here and have what I consider a crazy world view but thats the beauty of a real world.

You cant just make an outlandish claim and expect people to just go with it. Carl sagan springs to mind : "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

That movement makes so many claims and immediately hangs anyone who disagrees. Im suprised the guys dont write in Newspeak on that board.

Cheers

Funny thing here my good friend, I am very often accused of sending threads off topic over at LC. Now look here, I posted a short clip and then went into a two page fiasco about some dude on another forum.

SRW
13th July 2006, 08:22 PM
Let me just ask you one question.....did I ever bring the guy up.....one time? I am answering questions that I was asked. I do not even know him.

Yes you did "DavidJamses scares me..." in response to someone else or not you have been giving him a slice of your thinking time.

I really think you should get back your desecration of the people who died on 911. It seems like you have no fear that the dead will harm you.

SBrown
13th July 2006, 08:23 PM
Yes you did "DavidJamses scares me..." in response to someone else or not you have been giving him a slice of your thinking time.

I really think you should get back your desecration of the people who died on 911. It seems like you have no fear that the dead will harm you.
You are digging.....lol

SBrown
13th July 2006, 08:46 PM
OK JDX pm'd me with the answer to my question and I promised I would post it here since you guys asked. Then I think I am done for the night, this has made me very tired. Goodnight friends:


yeah.. i already told Class and someone else through PM i was mistaken. I think my original quote was that "i think" i was in middle school when it happened (Iran Contra). But i stand corrected, i wasnt in middle school. Also, you do know that you can solo an airplane at age 16 and get your private at age 17.. right?


I been flying for over 20 years. I been flying professionally for over a decade. You guys are WAY too obsessed with this stuff. I checked out that JREF site... wow... like two pages dedicated to me trying to figure me out. DavidJames is just out there! The personal attacks are beyond belief. Im going to recommend his IP get banned forever. He has no respect for anyone, including himself. How dare he tell me how i can question my govt when i have also lost friends and colleagues.


Lets do this... lets say im not a pilot, and just dispute all my aero knowledge when i talk about it... ok?

and for the last time.. credentials are CFI II MEI ATP. look it up.

edit: Here i'll help you..

CFI - Certified Flight Instructor
II- Instrument Instructor
MEI- Multi Engine Instructor
ATP - Airline Transport Pilot (supersedes Commercial Pilot Certificate.)
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...pic=8013&st=240
page 9 near bottom



Peace all lets hope for the best for the families being bombed in the Middle East tonight.

hellaeon
13th July 2006, 08:53 PM
Funny thing here my good friend, I am very often accused of sending threads off topic over at LC. Now look here, I posted a short clip and then went into a two page fiasco about some dude on another forum.

Well your actively contributing to the said discussion...?

Anywayz... What do you think of the boards now? You completely attacked randi for a while. Yet you can post here. Hardly anyone here can go defend what is said about him, them or participate in a thread discussion because they are usually banned. Its only been from persisting with LC admins that bans get lifted. I got banned for absolutely f*k knows what...after you and others basically went to the keyboard warrior school against me first. In fact your doing now what you accused me of. All that nice good "lets be friends" stuff. Remember that?

But man - lets rock, care factor zero. Lets get back to the basics.
I think your 100% wrong about 9/11. Apart from the date. Whats a big gripe you have with 9/11? Post something up here that we can see and actively discuss.

EDIT: I should add that most arguements can be saved by reading the critiques widely available.

Cheers

Sword_Of_Truth
13th July 2006, 08:54 PM
JDX is definately a liar. He's said several times (in posts he's probably furiously chasing down and editing) that he has flown professionally for 20 years. Except now he claims it's ten.

Whatever.

The only people being bombed in the middle east that I'm aware of tonight is Hizbollah and Hamas.

the only prayer that I will offer omn thier behalf is the one proposed by the great canadian philosopher John Candy:

"May the Good Lord take a likin to ya and blow ya up RRREEEEEEEAAALLL GOOOOOD!!!"

Stellafane
13th July 2006, 08:56 PM
...You guys are WAY too obsessed with this stuff...

...says the guy who posts 100+ times a day on the same topic, all of which sound like they were written by a 12-year old.

Gravy
13th July 2006, 08:57 PM
It seems Jones is leaning away from the thermite box/cylinder and leaning towards sol-gels.

http://911blogger.com/

"Note also that while I'm leaning now to the use of thermite-containing sol-gels, it is possible that cylinders containing thermite as you have found patents for could have [also] been used. Finding such a cylinder would indeed be a dramatic proof in itself, I believe."
No indeedy. Forget one being impressive. Finding hundreds of these extremely durable devices would be expected. Where'd they go?

Class
13th July 2006, 09:10 PM
JDX is definately a liar. He's said several times (in posts he's probably furiously chasing down and editing) that he has flown professionally for 20 years. Except now he claims it's ten.
[/size]
Whoa, have a link to that?

TjW
13th July 2006, 09:38 PM
"Middle school" is 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, sometimes just 7th and 8th grades though this would be called "junior high" in those places. 8th graders are generally 13 years old maximum, unless you started school late or were held back.
Yes, I know. I suppose I should have used a smiley.

Brainster
13th July 2006, 10:26 PM
"Middle school" is 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, sometimes just 7th and 8th grades though this would be called "junior high" in those places. 8th graders are generally 13 years old maximum, unless you started school late or were held back.

You may start 8th grade at age 13, but unless you were born in the summer you will usually end it at age 14, just as most high schoolers are 18 when they graduate.

DavidJames
13th July 2006, 10:57 PM
Come on Pard, you are one of the level headed ones here, you can see that DavidJames has gone off the deep end. You guys may want to give him vacation or something. He needs some time to clear his head and not think of the woos for a bit. I am really worried about him.Not to worry my friend. Others here, much brighter, more energetic and armed with much more data, are better able to represent reality in the face of the disingenuous lies dribbled by the likes of those at Loose Change.

I suffer many human frailties, one of which has become especially short, patience. It didn't take long to realize the hardcore losers at LC won't be swayed by facts or evidence. How does one argue the merits of an analysis of structural failure performed by multiple independent organizations. An analysis performed by named, expert engineers, documented in painstaking detail, data openly available for all to review, against someone who shows a picture, points to smoke and says "looks like thermite". The LC peer review is completed when his lackey follows and wonders aloud how us skeptics can continue to ignore these "facts". How indeed?

I decided to expose the losers inability to perform the most elementary research and analysis. Perhaps such a simply exposition would turn on a light bulb, if not in the dim cavernous vacuums of their own minds, perhaps in the more receptive minds of others. If someone is unable to crawl, how can anyone expect them to walk, much less run?

It turned out much simpler then I expected with my comments on the volume of johndoeX postings. It also turned out much better as jennabell was snared as well. I made my claim and posted the direct sources for the data. I saw the same basic lack of critical thinking the CTers use to defend their conspiracy theories exposed in this small example

- First there was rejection of the claim without any research of the facts
- Then when they did do research, they stopped when they felt they obtained the result they were looking for.
- Then, using the incomplete data, made a false assumption based on incorrect reading of the original claim
- They then attempted further research but completely misread the data, again reaching an erroneously conclusion.
- Finally, after one reported the erroneous claim, the other patted him on the back and regurgitated the incorrect conclusion.

These basic failures are replete throughout conspiracy theorists everywhere. Surely a reasonable person would recognize these shortcomings. Surely they would, considering the mild implications of the claims in question, make the small concession that their accusations about the original claim and data were incorrect. But these aren't reasonable people, they are blind idealogues, zealots, who have adopted a belief and now search blindly, grasp recklessly for anything to support their belief. Realizing that recognition of their mistakes would expose them as the incompetent frauds they are, they attacked.

It's amusing to read them say how I'm too emotional, or unstable or worse. I have a tough job. One where I'm required to meet aggressive schedules, manage multi-million dollar budgets, deal with customers with expectations greatly exceeding reality. Playing whack-a-mole with a handful of CTers is the best therapy and most relaxing experience I've had in the past 6 months.

Thanks johndoeX and jennabell, you guys are the best. :D

Belz...
14th July 2006, 07:11 AM
Construction was delayed for over a year because not enough explosives were available to fill the insides of the towers. Construction resumed after Israel Abromowitz invented Christomitey, an inexpensive high explosive made from virgins' blood and the bones of murdered Christian babies.

Those ARE usually the most potent.

Kiwiwriter
14th July 2006, 08:50 AM
14. I take my beloved Brooklyn Bridge trivia very seriously.

p.s. Construction was delayed for over a year because not enough explosives were available to fill the insides of the towers. Construction resumed after Israel Abromowitz invented Christomitey, an inexpensive high explosive made from virgins' blood and the bones of murdered Christian babies.


My apologies. I take the Brooklyn Bridge and its construction extremely seriously as well. The three Roeblings are among my favorite Americans, although Johann (John) Roebling's death was needless, painful, and remains upsetting to me.

As a native New Yorker, I am a big fan of the Brooklyn Bridge, and attended its centennial celebrations in 1983. The fireworks display was memorable. I usually take visitors to New York across the bridge by foot.

As for conspiracy theories around its construction, what about the fact that the artwork in the Chambers Street Station of the BMT depicts a bridge with the Brooklyn Bridge's towers, but the wrong cables?

Kiwiwriter
14th July 2006, 08:54 AM
Now, now. No sense anymore in talking about Christophera.


Perhaps so, but he's hardly unique. They are a hardy species, and will be here long after us humans.

Kiwiwriter
14th July 2006, 09:02 AM
You still go there? Damn, you've got more patience than I do. So they finally 86'ed him eh? He never did answer my question if baseball was wrong because a man with four balls can't walk.

The THC forum lost it a few years ago when they started changing formats every 6 months for the hell of it. I think the number of users dropped by 90%.

Yes, Confucius and his 54 (by my count) handles, all various versions, finally got the axe in early June. During my previous battle there, I got into communication with a high-ranking guy at A and E, which owns THC,and he disposed of the jerks harassing me. We stayed in touch, and I gave him chapter and verse on the many variants of Confucius, and after six months, they finally hammered him. Mr. Comical Wuss, as he was called, showed his contempt for moderators, sneering that half an hour after he was banned, he could come back under a new identity...he sometimes had two on at the same time, but in admitting that he posted from his job (computer consultant at a Toronto brokerage house), he opened himself up for dismissal for cause.

His handles were a hoot:

*C0nfucius+ End Ignore
*Confuciu$ End Ignore
*Confucius End Ignore
+C0nfuciu$+ End Ignore
+C0nfucius End Ignore
+C0nfucius+ End Ignore
+Confuciu$+ End Ignore
+Confucius End Ignore
+Confucius+ End Ignore
+K0nfucius+ End Ignore
+K0nfuciuz End Ignore
+K0nfuciuz+ End Ignore
+Konfuciu$+ End Ignore
+Konfucius+ End Ignore
-Confuciu$- End Ignore
-Confucius+ End Ignore
-Confuicuiz-
C0nfuciu$ End Ignore
C0nfucius End Ignore
C0nfucius- End Ignore
C0nfucius1 End Ignore
C0nfucius2 End Ignore
C0nfucius3 End Ignore
C0nfuciuz End Ignore
C0nfuciuz- End Ignore
Confuciu$ End Ignore
Confuciu$+ End Ignore
Confuciu$- End Ignore
Confucius+ End Ignore
Confucius-- End Ignore
Confucius1 End Ignore
Confucius18 End Ignore
Confucius19 End Ignore
Confucius2 End Ignore
Confucius20 End Ignore
Confucius21 End Ignore
Confucius3 End Ignore
Confucius4 End Ignore
Confucius8 End Ignore
Confucius_ End Ignore
Confuciuz
K0nfucius End Ignore
K0nfuciuz+ End Ignore
Konfuciu$ End Ignore
Konfuciu$_ End Ignore
Konfucius+ End Ignore
Konfuciuz End Ignore
Konfucuiz+
_C0nfuciu$

So you can see that he defined the word "obsessive."

I don't post there much any more, and not because of the wars on me, but for two reasons

1. I don't have the time to waste on Holocaust deniers.
2. I have even less time to waste on overheated 15-year-olds of all ages who argue over assault rifles, whether Rommel is cooler than Patton, and about Hannity and Colmes.

But I check it periodically to make sure that I'm not the target du jour.

Belz...
14th July 2006, 09:24 AM
OK thanks pard....are we friends again?:catfight:

I love this kind of attitude. When someone points out a mistake, deny it. When he PROVES it's a mistake, be sarcastic, as though the mistake didn't matter, after all.

Belz...
14th July 2006, 09:29 AM
Biggest sign....he is completely obsessed with JDX.

Over the top

Trying to make a point that seems lost on everybody in the CT crowd is not obsession.

The point was that JohnDoeX is a dishonest debater, and I've seen it myself. So I concur with Dave.

OK I will try and ask him if you guys cannot. Can I ask why this is so important?

Because if someone makes contradictory statements, either his memory is faulty or he's lying.

Belz...
14th July 2006, 09:34 AM
You are digging.....lol

Again. It's called research and supporting one's claims.

And what do you write? What was the last thing you published. How is my writing skulls? My teacher said they wuz pretty good. :D

Well THAT's an honest answer to an honest post if I've ever seen one. :rolleyes:

Funny thing here my good friend, I am very often accused of sending threads off topic over at LC. Now look here, I posted a short clip and then went into a two page fiasco about some dude on another forum.

The point is, you won't get banned for your opinions or your tenacity, here.

Belz...
14th July 2006, 09:35 AM
He has no respect for anyone, including himself.

Now, Jenabell... does that sound logical to you ?

Hellbound
14th July 2006, 09:50 AM
Reason for the focus on JohnDoeX:

JDX relies on his supposed authority and expertise as an airline pilot to support his argumnets. HE brought his personal life and background into his arguments. He then refused to provide evidence of his expertise or experience. Thus, without some evidence of his claim to expertise, that support for his arguments is worthles. Since there is very little in the way of other evidence to support his arguments, his argumnets are nothing more than uninformed opinion.

Is it ad hominem? To a degree, but if one uses ones expertise as evidence for ones position, then one cannot then complain when that expertise is in question.

IN a like manner, I have claimed expertise in military matters, and some experience with explosives. Unlike JDX, however, I am willing to support my claims (primarily by showing a familiarity with military subjects that can be verified by others, as well as the actual maths and calculations to back up my arguments about explosives. IN addition, I still link to other sources when I can, and do not rely solely on my expertise and/or experience as a basis for my position).

So, hopefully you can understand this.

Sword_Of_Truth
14th July 2006, 10:17 AM
I think JDX is best summed up by comments like this (said to Abby over at LC):

damn.. this girl is so literal. Do you have any common sense? Not trying to mock.. just asking.

Seriously; when someone makes an arse of himself like this and then claims to have been a teenage airline pilot, he's just begging for a drubbing.

DavidJames
14th July 2006, 10:20 AM
I think JDX is best summed up by comments like this (said to Abby over at LC):



Seriously; when someone makes an arse of himself like this and then claims to have been a teenage airline pilot, he's just begging for a drubbing.
lets not forget when johnboy told her to go chase boys which was after he told her she was a pimply faced boy who couldn't get laid.

Sword_Of_Truth
14th July 2006, 11:00 AM
lets not forget when johnboy told her to go chase boys which was after he told her she was a pimply faced boy who couldn't get laid.

Oh yeah, classic.

If you're an internet bully and the only female in the chat room shows no interest in you or questions your desirability, she must be a lesbian and needs to be told wich kind of tail to chase. :p

Abbyas
14th July 2006, 11:47 AM
If you're an internet bully and the only female in the chat room shows no interest in you or questions your desirability, she must be a lesbian and needs to be told wich kind of tail to chase

I'm underage now according to him.

Insults over a message board always confuse me.

It's hard not to focus on JDX over there when he places himself in every single thread whether he knows anything or not.

realitybites
14th July 2006, 12:17 PM
Suspended again.... No reason.

Although I have a hunch it's because JohnDoe pitched a fit when I said I didn't recognize Gypsy with her clothes on.

In other news, Roxdox calls Dubfan a "**** stain" and walks free.

Edit: Wow... before I just wasn't allowed to post. Now I can't even get into the forum. Baby steps to the badge....

dubfan
14th July 2006, 12:31 PM
Suspended again....


Me too. Looks like I struck a nerve.

Alright you little sh^t stain. That is about enough of your bullsh^t. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7995&view=findpost&p=6061872)

DavidJames
14th July 2006, 12:46 PM
Me too. Looks like I struck a nerve.Looks like they're kicking all the adults out of their sandbox.

dubfan
14th July 2006, 12:50 PM
Uncle Fetzer basically punts on all 3 of my questions, referring two (sulfur and "nanothermate") to Steve Jones, and a third (about the Keebler Elves) to Judy Wood (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/14/pg1/srtpages) at a CT website hosting a moderated Q&A.

Hutch
14th July 2006, 12:56 PM
They have gone strak-raving bonkers over this Hezbollah/Isreal thing. And I used to think our Politics section was over the top...:eye-poppi

In the LC Community Sub-Forum...If I could only get Skeptic and webfusion over there...:boxedin:

SRW
14th July 2006, 12:58 PM
Me too. Looks like I struck a nerve.

Damn I made on post in that thread yesterday asking if chucksheen was serious about not knowing what ordnance was, I thought it was just a dead thread, but poof it disappeared.

How the hell will I ever get banned if they keep deleting my posts?

Sheesh

Regnad Kcin
14th July 2006, 12:59 PM
Looks like they're kicking all the adults out of their sandbox.http://vaiden.net/rascals_files/image009.jpg

Kent1
14th July 2006, 01:14 PM
Uncle Fetzer basically punts on all 3 of my questions, referring two (sulfur and "nanothermate") to Steve Jones, and a third (about the Keebler Elves) to Judy Wood (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/14/pg1/srtpages) at a CT website hosting a moderated Q&A.

"Even the NIST admitted it had found sulfur residue it could not explain. I find it unreasonable that NITS would have overlooked explanations such as you suggest were they available and appropriate. "

NIST has nothing in their report about the sulfur residue. It was FEMA.
Ask him if Jones has contacted Mr Barnett from FEMA.
He was able to exaplin what he thought were the top three probably sources were quite well. And no...... none of them were thermite, nano thermite, gel-sols etc...

In fact one of them was Gyp wallboard dust. another was fuel.



"The impact of the planes was negligible, the fires burned too low and too briefly to have caused the steel to weaken much less melt, there was not enough kinetic energy for a floor's collapse to bring about another floor's collapse or for that occurrence to bring about the pulverization of the concrete flooring, plus the speed of fall--10 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North--even exceeded the rate of free-fall for a grand piano released in space and only affected by air resistence, which would have come down in 12 seconds!"


The buildings didn't fall in 10 or 11 sec. Why do they keep saying this?


"Not to mention the enormous pools of molten metal that were found at the subbasement level three, four, and five weeks later. For more, consult Steve."

Why couldn't their be molten pools. Does he also believe building no6 was blown up also?

"But there had to have been another source of immense energy to blow steel beams outward and even upward and create that massive cloud of very fine dust. "


Why,...and what blew up?

Fetzer continues his crappy research.....his other replys are even worse


"The debris distributed over eight square miles in Shankesville when it should have only covered a city block if the official account were correct" LOL!!! Ask him what the debris were...

kookbreaker
14th July 2006, 01:16 PM
"Why couldn't their be molten pools.

Better point: WHERE ARE THESE MOLTEN POOLS? Not one picture, not one video, accounts that are more artistic than documentary. Its a load of nonsense that there was anything other that hot metal.

Kent1
14th July 2006, 01:31 PM
Better point: WHERE ARE THESE MOLTEN POOLS? Not one picture, not one video, accounts that are more artistic than documentary. Its a load of nonsense that there was anything other that hot metal.

Considering the temps were above the melting point of Aluminum, I honestly don't see how there couldn't be.
Common house fires have pools of metal.

MarkyX
14th July 2006, 01:35 PM
Haha we are making Dylan Avery crack.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Yes Dylan, please post the letters that support you. Only post the ones that agree with your theory. Let's just forgot the ones you insulted and disgrace like Mark Bingham

What an *******.


By accepting and defending a clearly flawed and compromised investigation into the murder that took their lives, and by attacking those that choose to seek the true answers behind that day, YOU are insulting the victims. Not us.

So back down. Or come meet these people on September 11th, 2006, and tell them that what THEY believe is nonsense. Tell them that they are insulting themselves.


So he is saying that we are insulting the victims even though we are the ones who present evidence and facts, instead of assumptions and repeating lies. This is coming from the same person who takes the word of OSAMA BIN LADEN over the United States government. Still think the victims were voice recorders Mr Avery? And how are those T-Shirt sales doing?

And believe me when I say this, I would like to contact some of these people and show them our side of the story.

The_Fire
14th July 2006, 01:39 PM
"The impact of the planes was negligible, the fires burned too low and too briefly to have caused the steel to weaken much less melt, there was not enough kinetic energy for a floor's collapse to bring about another floor's collapse or for that occurrence to bring about the pulverization of the concrete flooring, plus the speed of fall--10 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North--even exceeded the rate of free-fall for a grand piano released in space and only affected by air resistence, which would have come down in 12 seconds!"


Maybe you should direct him to this video (http://911source.org/video/movies/fall_of_the_wtc) from one of their own sites (http://911source.org/).

Not only does it explain the construction of the towers, including the fact that it wasn't a concrete core in any of the towers, but it also demonstrates how the two vastly different impacts affected the buildings.

And I would hardly call an impact which cause the north tower to sway back and forth 6-7 times, to quote an in-tower eyewitness, neglible........

ETA: Warning: It's Real Video. Seems these CT'ers haven't heard about Quicktime, Windows media or DivX hench the shoddy compression. It is viewable in 50% size though...

Kent1
14th July 2006, 01:44 PM
Maybe you should direct him to this video (http://911source.org/video/movies/fall_of_the_wtc) from one of their own sites (http://911source.org/).

Not only does it explain the construction of the towers, including the fact that it wasn't a concrete core in any of the towers, but it also demonstrates how the two vastly different impacts affected the buildings.

And I would hardly call an impact which cause the north tower to sway back and forth 6-7, to quote an in-tower eyewitness, neglible........

ETA: Warning: It's Real Video. Seems these CT'ers haven't heard about Quicktime, Windows media or DivX hench the shoddy compression. It is viewable in 50% size though...

The problem with Fetzer is that he's come into this thing really late. He really hasn't done much research. He relys mostly on his poor memory.
He's a terrible leader of the group. Honestly I suspect many Truthers want to get rid of him.

realitybites
14th July 2006, 01:56 PM
Haha we are making Dylan Avery crack.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Yes Dylan, please post the letters that support you. Only post the ones that agree with your theory. Let's just forgot the ones you insulted and disgrace like Mark Bingham.
Whatever helps you sleep at night Dyllie.

Stellafane
14th July 2006, 02:07 PM
Whatever helps you sleep at night Dyllie.

That, and "Ol' Reliable" (his Vaseline-greased right hand).

steve s
14th July 2006, 02:12 PM
"But there had to have been another source of immense energy to blow steel beams outward and even upward and create that massive cloud of very fine dust. "


Why,...and what blew up?


If you ever watch videos of controlled demolitions done by the Loizeauxs, you notice that there isn't much dust created by the initial explosions. It's not until the building collapses that the huge cloud of dust forms. The Loosers seem to think that the concrete floor slabs were wired with explosives in addition to the steel columns. And they think that was all done during a 36 hour power-down.

Steve S.

JamesB
14th July 2006, 02:15 PM
Uncle Fetzer basically punts on all 3 of my questions, referring two (sulfur and "nanothermate") to Steve Jones, and a third (about the Keebler Elves) to Judy Wood (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/14/pg1/srtpages) at a CT website hosting a moderated Q&A.

He dodged just about every legitimate question. If Steve Jones died, what would they do? He really likes those trees, doesn't he?

60hzxtl
14th July 2006, 02:23 PM
That, and "Ol' Reliable" (his Vaseline-greased right hand).



Pull it.

Kent1
14th July 2006, 02:25 PM
He dodged just about every legitimate question. If Steve Jones died, what would they do? He really likes those trees, doesn't he?

Jones is too busy tending to his closed forum flock and trying figure a way out of all the problems croping up in his paper.

I wonder how his thermite tests are coming....

Brainster
14th July 2006, 02:27 PM
Haha we are making Dylan Avery crack.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Yes Dylan, please post the letters that support you. Only post the ones that agree with your theory. Let's just forgot the ones you insulted and disgrace like Mark Bingham

Well, one thing's for sure, Dylan didn't write those himself (looks like he copied and pasted from emails--note the formatting problems with blogger). There are very few spelling and grammar errors.

MarkyX
14th July 2006, 02:28 PM
Well, one thing's for sure, Dylan didn't write those himself (looks like he copied and pasted from emails--note the formatting problems with blogger). There are very few spelling and grammar errors.

He doesn't even tend the blog. Look at his myspace; the idiot doesn't even use caps.

Yes, he got himself a ghostwriter.

Gravy
14th July 2006, 02:29 PM
Haha we are making Dylan Avery crack.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Yes Dylan, please post the letters that support you. Only post the ones that agree with your theory. Let's just forgot the ones you insulted and disgrace like Mark Bingham

What an *******.
I'm sure he had the authors' permission to post their letters online. Amazing that the first one is supposedly from a relative of a flight 77 passenger, which Avery says did not hit the Pentagon, hence the remains that were collected there and returned to the family are not that of the author's relative. Somehow I don't think Avery mentioned that to the author. He only recently, reluctantly, admitted that there probably were passengers on any of the planes. Oh, and some of the 9/11 "victims" were actually dead before 9/11. Oh, and some of them were probably "in on it." Oh, and some of the relatives were probably also in on it. Oh, and the relatives who accepted money from the government are guilty of taking "hush money." And the passengers on flight 93? What heroics?

And the last words of all those who called from the hijacked planes and said "Tell the kids I love them?" Merely computer-generated hoaxes perpetrated by some smirking technicians in a room full of blinking hardware and cables. Do you think they high-fived each other when it was over, Dylan, for fooling all those family members?

Isn't life funny, Dylan? Who knew that your ticket out of Red Lobster would involve profiting from the unimaginable pain of strangers?

Loose Change Creators Speak (http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv)

Sword_Of_Truth
14th July 2006, 02:29 PM
Jones is too busy tending to his closed forum flock and trying figure a way out of all the problems croping up in his paper.

I wonder how his thermite tests are coming....

It's been almost two weeks and he hasn't answered my e-mail.

I guess he concurs with Fetzers opinion of our fellow mormons eternal salvation?

Kent1
14th July 2006, 02:42 PM
It's been almost two weeks and he hasn't answered my e-mail.

I guess he concurs with Fetzers opinion of our fellow mormons eternal salvation?

At first he used to answer questions quickly. Well at least he would try.
Now I hear nothing. I wonder whats up....

SBrown
14th July 2006, 02:42 PM
Afternoon brothers......how goes the hunt for Sylvia Browne and Bigfoot?:boxedin:

60hzxtl
14th July 2006, 02:52 PM
If anyone still doubts the self importance factor of the CT'er's check the thread here;


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8135

Definitely the issue of the day.

(pssst - Editing is not censorship!)

60hzxtl
14th July 2006, 02:56 PM
I'm sure he had the authors' permission to post their letters online. Amazing that the first one is supposedly from a relative of a flight 77 passenger, which Avery says did not hit the Pentagon, hence the remains that were collected there and returned to the family are not that of the author's relative. Somehow I don't think Avery mentioned that to the author. He only recently, reluctantly, admitted that there probably were passengers on any of the planes. Oh, and some of the 9/11 "victims" were actually dead before 9/11. Oh, and some of them were probably "in on it." Oh, and some of the relatives were probably also in on it. Oh, and the relatives who accepted money from the government are guilty of taking "hush money." And the passengers on flight 93? What heroics?

SNIP


Isn't life funny, Dylan? Who knew that your ticket out of Red Lobster would involve profiting from the unimaginable pain of strangers?

Loose Change Creators Speak (http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv)


Most of the letters he's posted are "gimme a video" letters - They are not letters from people who have seen it and are marching along holding a banner that says "inside job", or even praising the video.


Dylan's offer is a freebe to anyone who lost friends or family - I could ask for 5 copies in the most repectful way - and still want to push his head through the hole in the DVD.

Sword_Of_Truth
14th July 2006, 02:59 PM
At first he used to answer questions quickly. Well at least he would try.
Now I hear nothing. I wonder whats up....

I'm hoping he does show up at the 9-11 studies forum.

Getting him while he's out in the open may be the only way to pin him down.

CurtC
14th July 2006, 03:07 PM
If you ever watch videos of controlled demolitions done by the Loizeauxs, you notice that there isn't much dust created by the initial explosions.
Someone here went through the calculations of how much energy is available from just the falling mass of the building, versus that from explosives, and you'd have to have some godawful amount of explosives to match the gravitational energy from the building. So if the energy from the buildng's fall wasn't enough to cause all that dust, what did?

I'd like to see those calculations again; it would be nice thing to have handy to embarass CTs with.

Kent1
14th July 2006, 03:17 PM
I'm hoping he does show up at the 9-11 studies forum.

Getting him while he's out in the open may be the only way to pin him down.

It would be nice to see. I'd also like to see Griffin answer for all of his errors. Fetzer doesn't do much (or any) orginal research, so I could care less about him. But his posts are just jam packed with stupid errors.
So he does work nicely in our favor.

I would also suggest if people want to play, they should read up on the various claims made by Jones carefully.

JamesB
14th July 2006, 03:18 PM
Someone here went through the calculations of how much energy is available from just the falling mass of the building, versus that from explosives, and you'd have to have some godawful amount of explosives to match the gravitational energy from the building. So if the energy from the buildng's fall wasn't enough to cause all that dust, what did?

I'd like to see those calculations again; it would be nice thing to have handy to embarass CTs with.

I don't remember who did that here, but it has been done other places.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=3&catID=4

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

milesalpha
14th July 2006, 04:23 PM
Thought you all might enjoy the latest thread, or at least the one I found most amusing. Wonder where DJ has gotten to with his debunking of Gravy?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8161

gumboot
14th July 2006, 04:37 PM
And they think that was all done during a 36 hour power-down.


In only one building, nonetheless... which is impressive considering last tally the evil minions blew up 1, 2, 7, AND 6.

-Andrew

WildCat
14th July 2006, 05:06 PM
Gonna be interesting to see the CT'ers squirm over this one. It appears (I'm going just by the title of the doc) that the NIST has released the final report on WTC 7.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Can't d/l it right now, the server seems to be overloaded. No doubt w/ CT'ers anxious to use their impresive engineering knowledge to debunk it... :dl:

Kent1
14th July 2006, 05:22 PM
Gonna be interesting to see the CT'ers squirm over this one. It appears (I'm going just by the title of the doc) that the NIST has released the final report on WTC 7.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Can't d/l it right now, the server seems to be overloaded. No doubt w/ CT'ers anxious to use their impresive engineering knowledge to debunk it... :dl:
I don't believe that is it.
The final won't be out until Dec.
I believe that's from Apr 5 2005
The HTML cache
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Z6PqgHiSJQAJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%2520Part%2520IIC%2520-%2520WTC%25207%2520Collapse%2520Final.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Belz...
14th July 2006, 05:27 PM
Considering the temps were above the melting point of Aluminum, I honestly don't see how there couldn't be.
Common house fires have pools of metal.

A CTer reading this would only see the following:

Considering how low the temps were ,I honestly don't see how there could be pools of steel.

Belz...
14th July 2006, 05:31 PM
Afternoon brothers......how goes the hunt for Sylvia Browne and Bigfoot?:boxedin:

We don't hunt down dead things, Jenabell.

Mancman
14th July 2006, 05:32 PM
Gonna be interesting to see the CT'ers squirm over this one. It appears (I'm going just by the title of the doc) that the NIST has released the final report on WTC 7.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Can't d/l it right now, the server seems to be overloaded. No doubt w/ CT'ers anxious to use their impresive engineering knowledge to debunk it... :dl:

It's already been pre-debunked with the following highly scientific statement:

''The NIST is controlled by the government''

WildCat
14th July 2006, 05:34 PM
I don't believe that is it.
The final won't be out until Dec.
I believe that's from Apr 5 2005
The HTML cache
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Z6PqgHiSJQAJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%2520Part%2520IIC%2520-%2520WTC%25207%2520Collapse%2520Final.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Damn, that sucks. Had my hopes up.

gumboot
14th July 2006, 05:34 PM
"Not to mention the enormous pools of molten metal that were found at the subbasement level three, four, and five weeks later. For more, consult Steve."


I like this. I like how one piece of footage of clean-up crews lifting up salmon-hot (not molten) steel beams suddenly becomes "enormous pools of molten metal".

-Andrew

EDT. Typo

Belz...
14th July 2006, 05:36 PM
If anyone still doubts the self importance factor of the CT'er's check the thread here;


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8135

Definitely the issue of the day.

(pssst - Editing is not censorship!)

She doesn't know what free speech is, does she ?

Kent1
14th July 2006, 05:37 PM
A CTer reading this would only see the following:

I can show you a great example of this with Steven Jones
See if you can spot how he re-wrote it.

First the original from FEMA

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Now the Jones version:
(MISSING FIRST LINE) The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

Belz...
14th July 2006, 05:38 PM
Someone here went through the calculations of how much energy is available from just the falling mass of the building, versus that from explosives, and you'd have to have some godawful amount of explosives to match the gravitational energy from the building. So if the energy from the buildng's fall wasn't enough to cause all that dust, what did?

I'd like to see those calculations again; it would be nice thing to have handy to embarass CTs with.

These guys place too much weight on Hollywood movies. I might be wrong, but I think the collapse of a building is far more energetic than any explosive used to demolish it. They seem to think that a few kilos of C4 can anihilate an entire city block.

Belz...
14th July 2006, 05:40 PM
Thought you all might enjoy the latest thread, or at least the one I found most amusing. Wonder where DJ has gotten to with his debunking of Gravy?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8161

Dammit. That Chucksheen just keeps laying those golden eggs, doesn't he? :

There are personal attacks and it doesn't denounce the more important coincidences, red flags, smoking guns, cover ups, Bush-Cheney testified out of oath in private, holes, evidence, clues, reputation, etc.

Yeah. Those damn coincidences and red flags and smoking guns and cover ups prove... er... pretty much nothin'.

JamesB
14th July 2006, 05:41 PM
I like this. I like how one piece of footage of clean-up crews lifting up salmon-hot (not molten) steel beams suddenly becomes "enormous pools of molten metal".

-Andrew

EDT. Typo

The same way that electrical repairs in part of one tower suddenly becomes "all of the world trade center was evacuated and the security was shut down".

Kent1
14th July 2006, 06:02 PM
I like this. I like how one piece of footage of clean-up crews lifting up salmon-hot (not molten) steel beams suddenly becomes "enormous pools of molten metal".

-Andrew

EDT. Typo
While a lot of the article is pandering to the CT'ers I like this part

Trained in nuclear and atomic physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, Cahill now specializes in the transport of aerosols and their radiative effects in the atmosphere. He has performed the most definitive studies to date on the pollutants that smoldered up out of Ground Zero’s rubble piles and into the lungs of cleanup workers.

Cahill arrived at Ground Zero weeks after the reports of molten metal at the scene, but his extensive research on why the rubble piles smoldered so long was of interest to controlled-demolition theorists, who believed molten steel in the bottom of the piles provided the heat source. Such was not the case, Cahill said. Instead, fuel oil from the WTC’s generators seeped into the ground, ignited and slowly consumed the debris stacked on top of it. As the piles were peeled open, oxygen stoked the underground fire, which burned for weeks.

http://209.63.142.214/issues/sacto/2006-06-22/cover.asp

WildCat
14th July 2006, 06:02 PM
I like this. I like how one piece of footage of clean-up crews lifting up salmon-hot (not molten) steel beams suddenly becomes "enormous pools of molten metal".

-Andrew

EDT. Typo
There were actually reports of molten metal (not steel) by credible witnesses, such as Richard Garlock (IIRC he is a structural engineer):
The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

gumboot
14th July 2006, 06:16 PM
There were actually reports of molten metal (not steel) by credible witnesses, such as Richard Garlock (IIRC he is a structural engineer):

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html


If it was red hot and molten as per the description, it isn't steel. Aluminium happens to melt at "cherry red" temperatures. Coincidence? I think not.

-Andrew

Kent1
14th July 2006, 06:26 PM
If it was red hot and molten as per the description, it isn't steel. Aluminium happens to melt at "cherry red" temperatures. Coincidence? I think not.

-Andrew
Likey it was a hodge podge of different garbage with the aluminum raising the blackbody. What Jones doesn't seem to understand is that the aluminum doesn't have to be pure.

Its one of his many bad assumptions.
Like thinking that the fire can't get to 1000C or higher.

SRW
14th July 2006, 08:15 PM
Time for Sept. 11 probe

Letters to the editor

Your June 26 editorial, "A memorial befitting 9/11," highlighted our nation's need for closure on Sept. 11. Recently an FBI spokesman, Rex Tomb, stated that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11."
What, you ask. Didn't he admit it on videotape? Didn't we start two wars based on that evidence?
Some physicists and Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers claim that the airliners' impact and the exploding fuel alone could not have caused the near free-fall collapse of the Twin Towers. The Internet is abuzz with alternative versions and conspiracy theories. Surveys by Pew and Zogby found that more than half of the people in the Arab countries and large segments of the population elsewhere, including New York, have not accepted the official version of the events. Many questions from victim family members remained unanswered by the official Sept. 11 commission.
Almost five years have passed. For the sake of closure, to honor the memory of the victims, and to put divisive conspiracy theories to rest, we need to have a new, complete and fully independent investigation


This was in my local paper this morning, I am putting together a reply any glaring mistakes I can point out other than the free fall bs?

TIA Steve

dubfan
14th July 2006, 08:26 PM
Time for Sept. 11 probe

Letters to the editor


Some physicists and Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers claim

The "MIT Engineer" (note singular -- NOT plural) who supports the CT, is probably Jeff "jumping carpeted floors" King. He is not an "MIT Engineer". He received his undergrad degree in electrical engineering (IIRC) from MIT in the mid-70s.

He's been a practicing physician for the last 25 years. He has no current affiliation with MIT *at all*.

PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeffrey King, a 50-something former engineer (MIT class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering), gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years. See here for more details: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting%20the%20Evidence/index.htm#Pupp

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-about.html-.html

realitybites
14th July 2006, 08:45 PM
MIT huh? I didn't go to school in the 70s, so maybe some of the more seasoned vets here can answer this question for me.

Back then, did they teach the concept of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west? Or did that theory come along later under the Reagan administration?

Reason I ask is because PlaguePuppy seems to think this photo (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-229478.html) of the collapse of the north tower has a "bright glow" about it.

Now I didn't go to MIT, but being that the photographer is looking south, and the "glow" appears to be only on the eastern side, would it be reasonable to assume that it's just the morning sun reflecting off the dust cloud and debris?

SRW
14th July 2006, 09:19 PM
MIT huh? I didn't go to school in the 70s, so maybe some of the more seasoned vets here can answer this question for me.

Back then, did they teach the concept of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west? Or did that theory come along later under the Reagan administration?

Reason I ask is because PlaguePuppy seems to think this photo (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-229478.html) of the collapse of the north tower has a "bright glow" about it.

Now I didn't go to MIT, but being that the photographer is looking south, and the "glow" appears to be only on the eastern side, would it be reasonable to assume that it's just the morning sun reflecting off the dust cloud and debris?

As I recall from being in college in the 70's...wow, I don't recall all that much about it. I do distinctly recall getting into an argument with some one who used to get high and watch the sun rise over the beach in California. Well it was not MIT but UCONN is not all that bad.

realitybites
14th July 2006, 09:45 PM
Totally pointless, but in the search for my new avatar (inspired by the fine folks over at SLC), I came across this pic. Just kinda struck me funny.

http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/49keeb.jpg

gumboot
14th July 2006, 09:45 PM
Some physicists and Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers claim that the airliners' impact and the exploding fuel alone could not have caused the near free-fall collapse of the Twin Towers.


You have already pulled up the "Free-fall" BS, but it is also worth noting that the official NIST report also claims the aircraft impact and exploding fuel alone cound not hace caused the collapse of the Twin Towers.

They maintain it was a combination of the following:
1) Impact force damaging the structure of the building
2) Impact force dislodging significant amounts of fire-proofing
3) Jet fuel causing extensive fires across entire expanses of multiple floors simultaneously
4) Temperatures from these extensive fires further weakened structural integrity of building

2 and 3 are very important, and 3 especially is often overlooked. Normally fire in a building starts in a small location and spreads slowly. Consider the 1 acre area of each floor of the WTC. Consider how long an open fire in a field takes to spread from a single spot to cover an acre.

What this means is normally, even in a severe fire that spreads across multiple floors, only a very small area is at maximum temperate at any given time. So only a small part of the structure is exposed to potentially steel-weakening temperatures at a given moment. As the "hot spot" moves on the steel hardens again and takes the weight off the bit that is now exposed to the fire.

But at the WTC the fuel spread across great swathes of multiple floors and started equal intensity fires there ALL AT THE SAME TIME. This meant in any given moment a significant percentage of the load-bearing structure was exposed to potentially steel-weakening temperatures within the fire zone.



Surveys by Pew and Zogby found that more than half of the people in the Arab countries ... have not accepted the official version of the events.

Well gee.... isn't that a surprise? I think we should also let the Arab world choose the USA's next president... :rolleyes:

-Andrew

MikeW
14th July 2006, 10:33 PM
There were actually reports of molten metal (not steel) by credible witnesses, such as Richard Garlock (IIRC he is a structural engineer):

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html
And of course the problem with that quote is it's talking about "molten metal" below WTC6. 6? Does that mean they put thermite/thermate in there, too? Or could it be that just regular fires were hot enough to produce these reports, after all?

Brainster
15th July 2006, 12:30 AM
Time for Sept. 11 probe

Letters to the editor

Your June 26 editorial, "A memorial befitting 9/11," highlighted our nation's need for closure on Sept. 11. Recently an FBI spokesman, Rex Tomb, stated that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11."
What, you ask. Didn't he admit it on videotape? Didn't we start two wars based on that evidence?
Some physicists and Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers claim that the airliners' impact and the exploding fuel alone could not have caused the near free-fall collapse of the Twin Towers. The Internet is abuzz with alternative versions and conspiracy theories. Surveys by Pew and Zogby found that more than half of the people in the Arab countries and large segments of the population elsewhere, including New York, have not accepted the official version of the events. Many questions from victim family members remained unanswered by the official Sept. 11 commission.
Almost five years have passed. For the sake of closure, to honor the memory of the victims, and to put divisive conspiracy theories to rest, we need to have a new, complete and fully independent investigation


This was in my local paper this morning, I am putting together a reply any glaring mistakes I can point out other than the free fall bs?

TIA Steve

I'd point out that Zacharias Moussaoui recently became the first person convicted of complicity in the attacks, that Osama has confessed to his involvement on several occasions so far, most recently in the last month, and that the polls cited also indicate that among those most likely to agree with the request for another investigation are high school dropouts, while those least likely were college graduates, and that another investigation will not satisfy the kooks as it will come to the same conclusions as the last investigation.

60hzxtl
15th July 2006, 04:35 AM
I'd point out that Zacharias Moussaoui recently became the first person convicted of complicity in the attacks, that Osama has confessed to his involvement on several occasions so far, most recently in the last month, and that the polls cited also indicate that among those most likely to agree with the request for another investigation are high school dropouts, while those least likely were college graduates, and that another investigation will not satisfy the kooks as it will come to the same conclusions as the last investigation.


You left out perpetual students looking to live off a government grant to "study" this situation forever, and Ivory Tower academics looking to become "experts" in the field and assured a job for life.

And as far as "diverse conspiracy theories" being put to rest? As fast as you answer them, they cook up another. (see first paragraph).

MarkyX
15th July 2006, 06:53 AM
I heard a while ago that a single jet was scrambled. Unfortunately, forgot to bookmark the damn thing.

Anyone know where I can find the information?

Gravy
15th July 2006, 08:07 AM
I'd point out that Zacharias Moussaoui recently became the first person convicted of complicity in the attacks, that Osama has confessed to his involvement on several occasions so far, most recently in the last month, and that the polls cited also indicate that among those most likely to agree with the request for another investigation are high school dropouts, while those least likely were college graduates, and that another investigation will not satisfy the kooks as it will come to the same conclusions as the last investigation.
Also, the Zogby polls were written and funded by the 9/11truth.org and Jimmy Walter. They were not independent, impartial polls. The poll of New Yorkers was held on the eve of the Republican National Convention in NYC: the time when anti-Bush sentiment was strongest, and it included such leading statements as “the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper.” Zogby issued a statement criticizing 9/11truth.org's interpretation of the May, 2006 poll results.

Gravy
15th July 2006, 08:09 AM
I heard a while ago that a single jet was scrambled. Unfortunately, forgot to bookmark the damn thing.

Anyone know where I can find the information?
Can you be more specific?

WildCat
15th July 2006, 08:14 AM
Anyone here (abby?) posting in Killtown's "ordnance plume (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8085&st=0)" thread might want to link to this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=796070773181554229&q=%22plane+crash%22) of a B-52 crashing.

eta: BTW, the loosers response will probably be that it was full of bombs and that's what exploded into a mushroom cloud. Maybe let them go w/ that for a bit before revealing that this was a practice run for an air show, and happened at Fairchild AFB in Spokane, WA. You'll probably have to explain them that B-52's don't carry bombs in air shows or practices for air shows...

Brainster
15th July 2006, 08:40 AM
I heard a while ago that a single jet was scrambled. Unfortunately, forgot to bookmark the damn thing.

Anyone know where I can find the information?

If you're talking about US fighters on 9-11, look in the first chapter (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm) of the 9-11 Commission report.

Two were scrambled from Otis, two from Langley.

CurtC
15th July 2006, 08:44 AM
Anyone here (abby?) posting in Killtown's "ordnance plume (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8085&st=0)" thread might want to link to this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=796070773181554229&q=%22plane+crash%22) of a B-52 crashing.
He's changed his tune somewhat, and now is just saying that crash sites all smoke for hours on end, while UAL 93 wasn't smoking very much when most of the pictures were taken.

JamesB
15th July 2006, 08:55 AM
I guess Dylan et al were on with Eric Hufschmid (14 July) arguing over who is the shill in the truth movement. I have only listened to a small bit where host John Stadtmiller is defending Karl Schwarz, saying the reason why his multi-million dollar companies don't have minor little things like offices and receptionists, is because Karl is too busy travelling around Europe trying to sell his technology.

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt06.html

I'll have to do a SLC post on this later. These guys are hilarious. Is there anyone connected with this movement who isn't a complete nutball?

WildCat
15th July 2006, 09:12 AM
He's changed his tune somewhat, and now is just saying that crash sites all smoke for hours on end, while UAL 93 wasn't smoking very much when most of the pictures were taken.
Those CT'ers are sure quick to move the goalposts when proven wrong, but never, ever admit they're wrong. Funny that!

DavidJames
15th July 2006, 09:25 AM
Those CT'ers are sure quick to move the goalposts when proven wrong, but never, ever admit they're wrong. Funny that!
Now come now WildCat, you're just not using that CT part of your brain. They know it was a CT, that is without question. All they are doing is trying to figure out the details.

You know the CT steps:

1. Reach conclusion
2. Find evidence.
3. Does evidence support conculsion?
4. No? go to 2.

CurtC
15th July 2006, 09:54 AM
johndoeX was asked about flight 77's circling maneuver just before it hit the Pentagon. After asserting that he had done a lot of study and that it was in a certain thread, then finding that it wasn't really posted there, he has come up with this as his guess of 77's flight path:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3800&view=findpost&p=6063420

I had accepted that he is/was a commercial pilot, but his guess is so completely, totally clueless that I can no longer keep from questioning his credentials.

He has the flight making an almost complete circle (at a fairly high speed presumably) with a diameter of about 1/4 mile. No wonder he's skeptical of whether this could be done!

Hellbound
15th July 2006, 10:19 AM
Ordinance.

Ordinance.Ordinance.Ordinance.

Ordinance.

Ordinance.Ordinance!

Ordinance

Sorry, that was really getting to me.

kevin
15th July 2006, 10:25 AM
Ordinance.


Sure, among you conformist sheeple. True thinkers know the correct spelling of ordnance.

Shrinker
15th July 2006, 10:39 AM
Ordinance.

Ordinance.Ordinance.Ordinance.

Ordinance.

Ordinance.Ordinance!

Ordinance

Sorry, that was really getting to me.
Uh oh, I think we're going to need a new explosives expert. :o

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ordnance

SBrown
15th July 2006, 11:06 AM
Hola brothers and sisters.

How goes the war on Sylvia Browne and Bigfoot? Are you winning yet?

Fight on people! I am considering going over to fight the evil and unjust, warlike Muslims with the empathetic and peaceful Israelis. :eek:

njslim
15th July 2006, 11:17 AM
Wow Kiwi! Looks like we are neighbors! What exit you at Bro'?

Really get torqued off by the idiots who spout off all the idiotic nonsense
like

United 175 (or no plane at all) hit South Tower (WTC2) - considering fact
that 50 coworkers on the upper floors of my building watched it smash
into the building (if you seen UNITED 93 the scene where air traffic controllers
at Newark watch the plane hit is dead accurate - we were at the BAYWAY
oil refinery in Linden, just south of Newark) My boss came down stairs
to tell us what happened - lot of my coworkers were (and still are) in shock
from what they saw.

Over at SCREW LOSE CHANGE forum have some whackjob - KILLTOWN is
handle who is going on about why tail of AA77 didn't leave mark on
Pentagon (jeez figure 100 foot hole blown in side would be enough!)

Also ranting that United 93 did not crash (if ever existed), but that hole was
dug and aircraft parts dumped in to make look like crash.

HAve fantasy of getting some of these clowns in room, tieing to chair and
saying "Now Repeat after me ....." while hitting upside of head with 2X4

But I digress.

Stellafane
15th July 2006, 11:20 AM
Hola brothers and sisters.

How goes the war on Sylvia Browne and Bigfoot? Are you winning yet?

Fight on people! I am considering going over to fight the evil and unjust, warlike Muslims with the empathetic and peaceful Israelis. :eek:

I fully realize that you have yet to answer a single question I've ever asked you, but call me an optimist. If you think that DavidJames is "psycho" (your word), what is your opinion of JohnDoeX, a person who has been caught saying things that flat out aren't true, typically writes 100+ posts a day, and writes like an uneducated juvenile?

Come on, you took the trouble to write a long posting basically admitting you needed to take a different approach in this forum and wanted a serious dialog here. In response, I agreed to give you the benefit of the doubt and offer a second chance. Since then you've resorted to your previous habit of infantile sarcasm. Was that post just a sham? If so, exactly how can you possibly presume to be in any position to call anyone else a psycho?

MarkyX
15th July 2006, 11:21 AM
Look what I whipped up in an hour

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr

EDIT: Anyone got a link to that nude photo shoot of gyspy and the unfortunate flag? I want to add that to Fun Stuff.

apathoid
15th July 2006, 12:08 PM
johndoeX was asked about flight 77's circling maneuver just before it hit the Pentagon. After asserting that he had done a lot of study and that it was in a certain thread, then finding that it wasn't really posted there, he has come up with this as his guess of 77's flight path:

I had accepted that he is/was a commercial pilot, but his guess is so completely, totally clueless that I can no longer keep from questioning his credentials.

He has the flight making an almost complete circle (at a fairly high speed presumably) with a diameter of about 1/4 mile. No wonder he's skeptical of whether this could be done!

Curt, you're right of course, thats complete nonsense. I've just recreated the turn using Google Earth and comparing it to the widely accepted approach of AA 77 and I found that the turn was 5.1 miles in diameter and just the 180 segment covered about 9 miles, all told.
The turn rate of an airliner is typically 1.5 degrees a second. If AA77 made the 300 degree turn in 150 seconds, that works out to, obviously, 2.0 degrees per second, or just 33% faster than the autopilot system wouldve turned the airplane. The vertical speed rate was also quite normal. The 757 descended 7000' in the same span, working out to a -2800 fpm rate which is right on the numbers for a 757(which routinely descends at closer to 3000-4000 fpm during flight idle economy descents.)
If JDX is a pilot, he is either deluding himself or purposely trying to mislead others who see him as an expert.

sophia8
15th July 2006, 12:20 PM
Haha we are making Dylan Avery crack.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/
Only that first email is from somebody who lost someone on one of the planes - most of the rest are just from people who are asking for a DVD. Only a minority have actually seen the movie.
The plane that person was lost on was flight 77 - the one that hit the Pentagon. I wonder if this person is aware that most of the Loose Change crew don't believe that a plane hit the Pentagon? She's clearly in a fragile mental state and I don't think that seeing the dammed DVD is going to help her at all.
All the other people quoted who lost somebody, lost them in the WTC. The second-to-last one is quite interesting:One of my best friends, C.M.P, died in the attacks. She worked for KBW, a brokerage firm. She was in the South Tower. She called her mom when the first plane hit & told her that she was told to stay in the office. Then the second plane hit. It hit under her so she had no chance of getting out. She called her mom again & told her what happened & that the walls were smoking & shaking, told her she loved her & the phone went dead.
I wonder what the no-planes crowd will say to that?
Also, it's a reminder that there are no eye-witness reports of explosions inside the WTC from people trapped inside the Towers. They had time to talk to loved ones and many, like the one above, described conditions around them. But none of them appear to have noticed all that thermite/thermate going off in the walls and columns around them.

All the phone calls from inside the Towers were faked, by the same team that faked the calls from the planes

Edited to fix typo.

DavidJames
15th July 2006, 12:57 PM
If you think that DavidJames is "psycho" (your word)...Being called psycho by jenabell/SBrown is badge of honor, a silver arrow in my quiver, a lock of golden hair from the fairest maiden. It is the blackest, sootiest pot in the burnt oven calling, well, you get the point.

Thanks jen, be sure to take your meds and give my best to john.

Sword_Of_Truth
15th July 2006, 12:58 PM
As entertaining as KKKilltown and JDX are, has anyone looked at the 9-11 Studies board over the last day or so?

Truthseeker1234 has his head planted so far up his hershey highway that he's (temporarily?) converted Brumsen to our side.:D

Shrinker
15th July 2006, 01:19 PM
Only that first email is from somebody who lost someone on one of the planes - most of the rest are just from people who are asking for a DVD. Only a minority have actually seen the movie.
The plane that person was lost on was flight 77 - the one that hit the Pentagon. I wonder if this person is aware that most of the Loose Change crew don't believe that a plane hit the Pentagon? She's clearly in a fragile mental state and I don't think that seeing the dammed DVD is going to help her at all.

He clearly fails to realise that printing letters like that isn't a defense against the anti-CT people here and elsewhere. In fact, it's one of the main reasons so many people are trying to fight his lies. If nobody was falling for it and getting themselves needlessly distressed, and pinning their hopes for closure on some never-gonna-happen trial of the century, then we'd probably leave him alone, what with free speech and all...

Brainster
15th July 2006, 01:42 PM
Look what I whipped up in an hour

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr

EDIT: Anyone got a link to that nude photo shoot of gyspy and the unfortunate flag? I want to add that to Fun Stuff.

You can find it here (http://host.bellezzaland.com/gallery.php?u=bellezza&g=Freedom-4). There are 3 other galleries in the series, just change the last number in that URL to 1-3 to see the others.

brumsen
15th July 2006, 01:56 PM
As entertaining as KKKilltown and JDX are, has anyone looked at the 9-11 Studies board over the last day or so?

Truthseeker1234 has his head planted so far up his hershey highway that he's (temporarily?) converted Brumsen to our side.:D
I'm on nobody's side, sorry.

This kind of attitude is exactly why I'm starting to think it will never ever be possible to conduct a truly reasonable debate.

Shrinker
15th July 2006, 02:06 PM
I'm on nobody's side, sorry.

This kind of attitude is exactly why I'm starting to think it will never ever be possible to conduct a truly reasonable debate.
Maybe if there was some way for both sides to commicate directly... Hmmm, perhaps a discussion forum? Where both sides were allowed to post, and both sides had the balls to participate sincerely.

edit: Welcome to the forum!

Stellafane
15th July 2006, 02:13 PM
I'm on nobody's side, sorry.

This kind of attitude is exactly why I'm starting to think it will never ever be possible to conduct a truly reasonable debate.

Hi brumsen. Welcome to the forum.

I'd like your thoughts as to why you think a truly reasonable debate cannot be conducted regarding 9/11.

brumsen
15th July 2006, 02:29 PM
Hi brumsen. Welcome to the forum.

I'd like your thoughts as to why you think a truly reasonable debate cannot be conducted regarding 9/11.
Well thanks for the welcome.

I just meant to point out, I guess, is that it seems to me that quite a few of the people I've encountered on the net debating this topic, appear to look at one's statements initially solely with a view to determine which side you're on, and then their attitude to what you say is determined by that, almost regardless of what you say.

So, pff, when someone is amused that I try to point out what I think is a mistake to someone who is supposed to be in the same 911-truthie camp as me, and read that as a sign that I've changed sides...

As if it was interesting "which side I am on". As if it mattered.

WildCat
15th July 2006, 03:54 PM
You can find it here (http://host.bellezzaland.com/gallery.php?u=bellezza&g=Freedom-4). There are 3 other galleries in the series, just change the last number in that URL to 1-3 to see the others.
Gypsy really needs to trim her grass.

Interpret that any way you'd like... :boxedin:

JamesB
15th July 2006, 03:54 PM
Well thanks for the welcome.

I just meant to point out, I guess, is that it seems to me that quite a few of the people I've encountered on the net debating this topic, appear to look at one's statements initially solely with a view to determine which side you're on, and then their attitude to what you say is determined by that, almost regardless of what you say.

So, pff, when someone is amused that I try to point out what I think is a mistake to someone who is supposed to be in the same 911-truthie camp as me, and read that as a sign that I've changed sides...

As if it was interesting "which side I am on". As if it mattered.

Didn't you get kicked out of the "scholars" by Fetzer? To your credit, you seem to have a pretty independent mind. That type of thing doesn't seem to fit in with them too well.

WildCat
15th July 2006, 04:12 PM
Well thanks for the welcome.

I just meant to point out, I guess, is that it seems to me that quite a few of the people I've encountered on the net debating this topic, appear to look at one's statements initially solely with a view to determine which side you're on, and then their attitude to what you say is determined by that, almost regardless of what you say.

So, pff, when someone is amused that I try to point out what I think is a mistake to someone who is supposed to be in the same 911-truthie camp as me, and read that as a sign that I've changed sides...

As if it was interesting "which side I am on". As if it mattered.
I hope you're not referring to me. I do try to only argue facts, though it's obviously an emotional subject. But you haven't banned me at least! ;)

MarkyX
15th July 2006, 04:51 PM
Gypsy really needs to trim her grass.

Interpret that any way you'd like... :boxedin:

Yep, she looked like an ugly person in the videos and I dared not see a full screen version. The thumbnails were bad enough.

And I've seen a lot of bad porn..

Added it to the site btw :)

Hellbound
15th July 2006, 07:51 PM
Uh oh, I think we're going to need a new explosives expert. :o

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ordnance

Gah.

Fine, I'll take the correction. I've always seen it spelled incorrectly, apparently.

Strange.

delphi_ote
15th July 2006, 10:02 PM
Gah.

Fine, I'll take the correction. I've always seen it spelled incorrectly, apparently.

Strange.
Maybe this (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ordinance.html) will be helpful:
A law is an ordinance, but a gun is a piece of ordnance.

brumsen
16th July 2006, 12:13 AM
I hope you're not referring to me. I do try to only argue facts, though it's obviously an emotional subject. But you haven't banned me at least! ;)
I was referring to Sword of Truth's posting here.

Indeed, I've seen no reason to ban you.

BTW, earlier on in the thread here I saw some bets about when some of you would be banned from the 9/11 studies journal forum. Very amusing :rolleyes:

brumsen
16th July 2006, 12:16 AM
Didn't you get kicked out of the "scholars" by Fetzer? To your credit, you seem to have a pretty independent mind. That type of thing doesn't seem to fit in with them too well.
Formally speaking, I resigned. He suspended me for a week for rather unclear reasons, which interestingly were unclear to his co-chair as well; and in the email exchange which I had with him following that I saw reasons to resign from SfT.

Sword_Of_Truth
16th July 2006, 12:44 AM
I was referring to Sword of Truth's posting here.

Indeed, I've seen no reason to ban you.

BTW, earlier on in the thread here I saw some bets about when some of you would be banned from the 9/11 studies journal forum. Very amusing :rolleyes:

Virtually all of us have been banned from a certain other 9-11 forum for the "crime" of presenting facts and evidence (some of us more or less diplomatically than others).

As for my post about you; to describe the subject matter as "emotionally charged" would be an understatement. Add to that the current political climate, the fact that both our countries are at war (I am a canadian citizen, we have had troops in afghanistan alongside our allies since the almost the earliest US incursion) wich in turn leads to the fact that if the "truthseekers" are wrong, then they have either willfully or out of ignorance aided the enemy and you have a perfect recipe for an atmosphere of "us vs. them" on both sides of the issue.

Ask the others here how many times they have been accused of working for the conspirators by opponents of the "official" version and you'll see what I'm talking about.

brumsen
16th July 2006, 01:37 AM
Virtually all of us have been banned from a certain other 9-11 forum for the "crime" of presenting facts and evidence (some of us more or less diplomatically than others).

As for my post about you; to describe the subject matter as "emotionally charged" would be an understatement. Add to that the current political climate, the fact that both our countries are at war (I am a canadian citizen, we have had troops in afghanistan alongside our allies since the almost the earliest US incursion) wich in turn leads to the fact that if the "truthseekers" are wrong, then they have either willfully or out of ignorance aided the enemy and you have a perfect recipe for an atmosphere of "us vs. them" on both sides of the issue.

Ask the others here how many times they have been accused of working for the conspirators by opponents of the "official" version and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I've been made out for rotten fish by both 'sides' so I know what you're talking about.
And my country also has troops in Afghanistan.

However, I do not see how truthseekers have aided the enemy. Who is the enemy to whom you refer, anyway?

And what I meant to be saying is that even if the recipe for the us-them atmosphere would seem to be perfect, I would hope that intellectuals and reasonoble people debating the issue could abstain from that kind of thing.

Gravy
16th July 2006, 01:49 AM
Ask the others here how many times they have been accused of working for the conspirators by opponents of the "official" version and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Four times, by four different people, today alone.
Yes, I'm serious.
I'm also a political liberal.
Go figure.

By the way, Brumsen, I'm Mark Roberts. Welcome to the forum!

Sword_Of_Truth
16th July 2006, 02:47 AM
I've been made out for rotten fish by both 'sides' so I know what you're talking about.
And my country also has troops in Afghanistan.


I've been accused of being a reptilian shapeshifter by one of the David Icke crowd. As well as a COINTELPRO agent agent a few dozen times.

However, I do not see how truthseekers have aided the enemy. Who is the enemy to whom you refer, anyway?

Al-Queada knocks over the WTC.

America and allies go to war against Al-Queada.

Truthseekers rise up, cry "false flag" and (here's where we go into the hypothetical) place nations leaders on trial, withdraw troops from the front and Al-Queada gets the land they lost back again.

As I said, they could be doing it willfully or out of ignorance. Either way, Al-Queada benifits.

And what I meant to be saying is that even if the recipe for the us-them atmosphere would seem to be perfect, I would hope that intellectuals and reasonoble people debating the issue could abstain from that kind of thing.

We may be adults, but we are only human. We will occaisionally falter or screw up despite our best efforts. In my defense, I didn't say anything about you half as offensive as I or the others have said about people like Chucksheen or JohndoeX, did I?

sophia8
16th July 2006, 02:59 AM
Yep, she looked like an ugly person in the videos and I dared not see a full screen version. The thumbnails were bad enough.

And I've seen a lot of bad porn..

Added it to the site btw :)
Personally, I think we can do without juvenile sexist comments on this board. Go away and grow up.

brumsen
16th July 2006, 03:17 AM
Al-Queada knocks over the WTC.

America and allies go to war against Al-Queada.

Truthseekers rise up, cry "false flag" and (here's where we go into the hypothetical) place nations leaders on trial, withdraw troops from the front and Al-Queada gets the land they lost back again.

As I said, they could be doing it willfully or out of ignorance. Either way, Al-Queada benifits.

I may have missed something - but why, then, was Iraq invaded if AQ is the enemy? Anyway this is not a politics thread I suppose.

No, Sword, it was not offensive really, it just made me sigh.

Sword_Of_Truth
16th July 2006, 03:47 AM
I may have missed something - but why, then, was Iraq invaded if AQ is the enemy? Anyway this is not a politics thread I suppose.

No, Sword, it was not offensive really, it just made me sigh.

In the context of the conspiracy theories, the Afghan operation is just as "misguided" as the Iraqi one.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, at least not to you. I was actually rather impressed that you were holding Truthseeker1234 to a high standard of proof and didn't hesitate to question what you saw as flaws in his analysis.

gumboot
16th July 2006, 03:52 AM
Personally, I think we can do without juvenile sexist comments on this board. Go away and grow up.


:confused:

What was sexist about his comment?

-Andrew

gumboot
16th July 2006, 03:55 AM
Anyone here (abby?) posting in Killtown's "ordnance plume (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8085&st=0)" thread might want to link to this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=796070773181554229&q=%22plane+crash%22) of a B-52 crashing.



I hate that video... apparantly the pilot in question was suspected of being a bit of a cowboy, so the squadron CO was onboard the aircraft for the rehearsal to watch him. Such a waste. :(

-Andrew

gumboot
16th July 2006, 03:59 AM
johndoeX was asked about flight 77's circling maneuver just before it hit the Pentagon. After asserting that he had done a lot of study and that it was in a certain thread, then finding that it wasn't really posted there, he has come up with this as his guess of 77's flight path:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3800&view=findpost&p=6063420



That's completely stupid...

Not only does the approach not match the ATC path as indicated in the 9/11 Commission Report, and not only does the turn not at all reflect what any eyewitnesses reported, but such movement would be completely and utterly illogical. Why interrupt a direct approach to make a single tight turn, before resuming on the same path? That's just... stupid.

-Andrew

Gravy
16th July 2006, 05:03 AM
That's completely stupid...

Not only does the approach not match the ATC path as indicated in the 9/11 Commission Report, and not only does the turn not at all reflect what any eyewitnesses reported, but such movement would be completely and utterly illogical. Why interrupt a direct approach to make a single tight turn, before resuming on the same path? That's just... stupid.

-Andrew
Ugh. With a turn radius of about 150 feet, let's hope he wasn't trying to draw the turn to scale.

About the approach: the 9/11 Commission report says flight 77 was at 7,000 feet at 38 miles out. When it finished the turn it was descending through 2,200 feet. It doesn't say what the altitude was at the start of the turn.

60hzxtl
16th July 2006, 05:33 AM
However, I do not see how truthseekers have aided the enemy.



Putting on my hypothetical hat:

The US, (or for that matter the Gov't. of Afghanistan or Pakistan) captures a high value target in the chain of Quaida command.

That figure is brought to trial. The way the civilized world conducts itself since Nuremberg.

His defense team turns to CT stuff, (controlled demolition, Pods on airplanes, No plane at the Pentagon, WTC as cover up for the murder of John O'Neil, execution of FDNY Chaplain by hypodermic needle, etc, etc.)

Defense attorneys create a glimmer of a doubt in the court of the world, (imagine this theoretical trial ['cause its my hypothetical hat here] could even take place in the Hague.)

Now the parade of expert witnesses ( Fetzer, Jones, Les Raphael, Jones again, and [drum roll] Ray Ubinger!) takes over the center ring, while the professional anarchists take up the two side rings left and right.

After months of testimony, sidetracks by "experts" the court (or committee) hopelessly confused by the haystack of nonsense, (they were just asking questions [and not listening to the answers just loading up another question] no harm in that.) the accused, has now been elevated to statesman, or at least political prisoner status. And walks away or is given a suspended sentence.

Impossible? Tojo faced the hangman. Pol Pot changed his shirt and went home.



AND, welcome to the forum, Brumsen.

60hzxtl
16th July 2006, 05:35 AM
Gypsy really needs to trim her grass.

Interpret that any way you'd like... :boxedin:


The analogy is just perfect.

Ignore the foreground, and have a good look at the background:

Gypsy can run the world, but her own back yard is a mess!

brumsen
16th July 2006, 06:00 AM
Putting on my hypothetical hat:

The US, (or for that matter the Gov't. of Afghanistan or Pakistan) captures a high value target in the chain of Quaida command.

That figure is brought to trial. The way the civilized world conducts itself since Nuremberg.
<snip>

Of course, we need to assume fair trial. If not, the problem lies there, not with CT's.

60hzxtl
16th July 2006, 06:05 AM
Of course, we need to assume fair trial. If not, the problem lies there, not with CT's.


Did I presume too much?

Built into that above is:

Trial in public

Defense of accused.

I can put on my hypothetical hat, but I can't put on the hypothetical (law) suit!