PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change - Part IV


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

brumsen
23rd August 2006, 05:01 AM
I have contacted the College of Engineering at BYU to confirm these quotes. If I get approval from them I will post their reply in full here.
Excellent. I'd like to hear what they have to say about it. Thanks.

MortFurd
23rd August 2006, 05:32 AM
Don't forget: this is the most craftily genius/bumblingly idiotic cabal in the history of mankind.
The conspirators are kind of like Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, except that they alternate between evil James Bond and Moe, Larry, and Curly.

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 06:54 AM
I don't have that evidence. FeO claims to have it, but OK, that is second-hand.


Yes, the journal is published by the "Scholars", on that we agree. But even if they - especially Fetzer - do not cease to talk about their authority, this is not how they defend the reputation of the journal, to my knowledge at least. If so, please provide evidence of that.


Right, I suppose all this means that we can safely dissociate the credibility of Judy Wood's claims from the credibility of the journal?
ETA: Wood appears to have left the Scholars; she's no longer listed. Interesting.


:confused: In your earlier post you said you were one of the editors?
Anyway, it's the editors that shape the future of the journal - and that also means solliciting good articles. But authors just want their work published - they do not care about shaping the future of a journal - they just want their work to get the best possible exposure.

And you believe FeO? What has he ever done or said to establish his credibility in this matter?

Well that is certainly interesting that Wood left. That cuts their number of engineers in half. That just leaves the French guy who thinks we are testing anti-matter weapons o Jupiter. Well at least they still have 9 philosophy professors.

I don't know how you can evaluate the reputation of a publication separate from the reputation of the organization that runs it. If the KKK started a journal on race relations, how credible would you consider it? Or Jim Fetzer's favorite, the American Free Press, for that matter...

Sorry, I explained my role poorly. I am not in "in charge" of JOD911. I am one of the people who contributes to it, and I discuss issues with the other people who basically help run it so I obviously have influence, but I am not solely in control. I was trying to say that that I could not speak on behalf of everyone else what it is supposed to be, it was just my opinion. It is pretty informal, we don't really follow a formal editorial process, just pass papers around and comment on them. Even so, we manage to use more credible evidence and make fewer mistakes than the "Scholars".

Darth Rotor
23rd August 2006, 07:40 AM
Don't forget: this is the most craftily genius/bumblingly idiotic cabal in the history of mankind.

A police state need not come during a coup. Sometimes, the approach is the death of a thousand cuts. The sheep keep waiting for a better sheepdog, and all the while get sheared.

Look at what 30 years of "tort gone wild" has done to liability costs, and thus costs of all sorts in general. The Tort Tax digs a hole in your pocket, and has arrived as the death of a thousand cuts.

Been to an airport lately? Been to a bar lately where state law forbids smoking, even though the owner permits it?

The "freedoms" that are taken for granted are lost unless someone fights for them. If you don't work at your rights, and fight for them (be it in court, in letters, with fists, whatever) you will lose them. Someone always wants to tell you what to do.

As a sound byte: freedom isn't free.

DR

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 07:54 AM
I, for one, have never had a problem with them creating a journal. Any group can so so. The problem I, and many here have had, is with their fequent use of the term "PEER REVIEWED" wrt to the articles in the journal.

The term is one used to indicate that the article has been read and evaluated by a group on individuals qualified in the subject of the article, in the case of a scientific article, and then published with their approval.

The problem is we have no idea who is "Peer Reviewing" the papers. Now a paper of "Philosophy, done by Fetzer, I can see being PEER REVIEWED, by the scholars, as there are tonnes of Philosophy proffs, and the like in their group. But as for papers published by Ross, and S. Jones, I would like to know the credentials of the "PEERS" and how many there were that reviewed the paper. Other wise, I think there is a serious ethical breech in misleading readers that these articles are truely PEER REVIEWED.

"PEER REVIEWED" to most in the science community, adds tremendous weight to the validity of a paper, because in most official, well respected journals, we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it. We do not know this to be the case in the "Journal for 9/11 Studies", so I think they should come forward with their "PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE" for each of the scientific studies they publish.

Same goes for Gravy, wrt the journal he is forming. If he is to call the papers in it "PEER REVIEWED" I would want to know, through written proof, that the papers are truely REVIEWED and oked, by PEERS in the given field/subject.

T.A.M.

kookbreaker
23rd August 2006, 07:59 AM
This thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=45973) was posted on the BautForum. It is amusing in that due to simple qualifications (internal consistency and obeying the laws of physics) I rather doubt that any theory will ever be posted there...or that any theory would qualify.

chipmunk stew
23rd August 2006, 08:02 AM
A police state need not come during a coup. Sometimes, the approach is the death of a thousand cuts. The sheep keep waiting for a better sheepdog, and all the while get sheared.

Look at what 30 years of "tort gone wild" has done to liability costs, and thus costs of all sorts in general. The Tort Tax digs a hole in your pocket, and has arrived as the death of a thousand cuts.

Been to an airport lately? Been to a bar lately where state law forbids smoking, even though the owner permits it?

The "freedoms" that are taken for granted are lost unless someone fights for them. If you don't work at your rights, and fight for them (be it in court, in letters, with fists, whatever) you will lose them. Someone always wants to tell you what to do.

As a sound byte: freedom isn't free.

DR
In a police state you can't fight for your freedoms within the law. Libertarian-leaning folks have a tendency to abuse the term. In many parts of the world, "police state" is not hyperbole.

realitybites
23rd August 2006, 08:04 AM
I'm confused. Wasn't there a poll a couple weeks ago that the troothers jumped all over stating something like every single American (and 8 out of 10 dogs) thinks that the US government had a hand in 9/11?

'Cause now there's this poll (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/osama.poll/index.html)... stating most Americans think Bin Laden is planning another attack.

Is this the government trying to brainwash us? Or is it possible polls in general are poop?

chipmunk stew
23rd August 2006, 08:07 AM
I'm confused. Wasn't there a poll a couple weeks ago that the troothers jumped all over stating something like every single American (and 8 out of 10 dogs) thinks that the US government had a hand in 9/11?

'Cause now there's this poll (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/osama.poll/index.html)... stating most Americans think Bin Laden is planning another attack.

Is this the government trying to brainwash us? Or is it possible polls in general are poop?
I vote poop.
100% of respondents to your question think they're poop.

chipmunk stew
23rd August 2006, 08:13 AM
I'm confused. Wasn't there a poll a couple weeks ago that the troothers jumped all over stating something like every single American (and 8 out of 10 dogs) thinks that the US government had a hand in 9/11?

'Cause now there's this poll (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/22/osama.poll/index.html)... stating most Americans think Bin Laden is planning another attack.

Is this the government trying to brainwash us? Or is it possible polls in general are poop?
BTW, I don't have cable. Is anyone planning on TiVo'ing the CNN Bin Laden documentary?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/bin.laden/

Cuddles
23rd August 2006, 08:34 AM
I vote poop.
100% of respondents to your question think they're poop.

Our survey shows that 3 out of 4 people now make up 75% of the population.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 08:40 AM
Our survey shows that 3 out of 4 people now make up 75% of the population.

It gets even worse.

My studies show that as many as 50% of the population could be below average intelligence.

brumsen
23rd August 2006, 08:59 AM
But as for papers published by Ross, and S. Jones, I would like to know the credentials of the "PEERS" and how many there were that reviewed the paper. Other wise, I think there is a serious ethical breech in misleading readers that these articles are truely PEER REVIEWED.

"PEER REVIEWED" to most in the science community, adds tremendous weight to the validity of a paper, because in most official, well respected journals, we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it. We do not know this to be the case in the "Journal for 9/11 Studies", so I think they should come forward with their "PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE" for each of the scientific studies they publish.
AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd August 2006, 09:02 AM
AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

However, the neutral, 3rd-party editor that handles the peers that review the submissions to the journal is usually known. Additionally, the people that are submitting papers are not the editors and are not the ones publishing the journal.

chipmunk stew
23rd August 2006, 09:03 AM
AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.
In this case it makes little difference. Whether judged by the quality of its papers or by the track record of the reviewers, this journal's reputation stinks.

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 09:05 AM
It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.

Doyle Winterton (FM)

Civil Engineering Structural Engineering

realitybites
23rd August 2006, 09:30 AM
It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.
Did Ms. Keebler give a reason as to why she left? Deforestation? Termite damage?

kookbreaker
23rd August 2006, 09:33 AM
It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.


The reason they do not list the credentials is that they are probably not engineers. Note that they are being listed as 'Structural Engineering' and 'Civil Engineering', not as a Structural Engineer or a Civil Engineer. Methinks the Scholars are puffing up the titles of a few folks who have had a limited amount of interest in those fields.

pgwenthold
23rd August 2006, 09:34 AM
AFAIK it is highly unusual for a journal to publicise who the peers are that it asks to review papers. Even more so wrt a single paper: it is supposed to be double-blind.

So, how do "we know a panel of true experts in the field in question have reviewed it."? Because we rely on the reputation of the journal. And for a beginning journal, that reputation first needs to be established. By the quality of its papers, for sure; not by saying who the reviewing peers are.

Very often, if you want to get an idea of the people who are reviewing papers in a journal, the best place to look is to the other authors that publish in that journal. Nothing gets you on a reviewers list for a journal than submitting a paper to it (good rule of thumb: expect 3 referee requests for every paper submitted)

That does not bode well if we apply it in this case.

brumsen
23rd August 2006, 09:47 AM
However, the neutral, 3rd-party editor that handles the peers that review the submissions to the journal is usually known. Additionally, the people that are submitting papers are not the editors and are not the ones publishing the journal.
What do you mean by 'neutral' and '3rd party'? We do know the editors in this case. I suspect that neutral and 3rd party do not generally apply to the academic peer-reviewed journals that I know.

Second point I agree entirely with you.

brumsen
23rd August 2006, 09:48 AM
Did Ms. Keebler give a reason as to why she left? Deforestation? Termite damage?
Not that I know. I've sent an email to ask her.

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd August 2006, 09:59 AM
What do you mean by 'neutral' and '3rd party'? We do know the editors in this case. I suspect that neutral and 3rd party do not generally apply to the academic peer-reviewed journals that I know.

Second point I agree entirely with you.

During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics is substantially different from that of a jury. In situations where the referees disagree about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision.

When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, an editor will convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow referees to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to convince anyone to change their opinions. Some medical journals, however (usually following the open access model), have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts.
...
At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.
...
Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time professionals with no time for scholarship. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ between academic disciplines. source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPeer_re view&ei=eofsRNCFIoKkpQKUsNmrDA&sig2=oySVx1SrVH6iSj-TY_HakA


In WilsonWeb, a journal is identified as peer-reviewed by H.W. Wilson professional librarians and/or product specialists who look for either one of the following:

* A description of the journal's peer review process in its instructions to authors or manuscript submission guidelines.

Or

* Notice of an independent editorial review board in the journal's front matter. The academic or scholarly affiliation of each member of the board must be identified.
(Those without affiliations are presumed not to be independent.) source: http://www.hwwilson.com/documentation/peer_reviewed.htm

The fact that they are self-editing and self-publishing means that they have a conflict of interest. Whereas, with a journal from ASCE or ASME, the journal, and therefore the editor, is independent of the interests of the people submitting the paper for publication.

Johnny Pixels
23rd August 2006, 10:05 AM
Been to a bar lately where state law forbids smoking, even though the owner permits it?

Smoking is bad for me though. I'm not saying other people shouldn't do it, but I'd rather not have to walk my girlfriend home early because the smoke makes her feel sick, go home and use my asthma inhaler, put all my clothes in the washing, have a shower to rinse the smell out of my hair and clean my glasses, all because someone else wants to die of lung cancer.

MarkyX
23rd August 2006, 10:12 AM
Good news kids.

I plan on making Screw Loose Change - Not Freaking Again edition. I finally got a working AVI that works with Windows Movie Maker, plus downloaded some extra video editing software for any other stuff.

This version will be high res and can be burned to a DVD.

Jennie C.
23rd August 2006, 10:27 AM
Okay another question about the LC2E video. I have a few of these, but I'm taking them one at a time (besides, it builds posts and with posts you can have a fence...sorry).

If the LC-guys get to cherry nit-pick the so-called "Official Conspiracy Theory" evidence, than can't I do the same to their video? That's rhetorical.

As I was watching the video, I noticed that virtually NONE (virtually meaning I didn't notice any) of the interviews show the video in sync with the audio. This is something that used to drive me Nuts when it happened (frequently) in the old days on TV. I recently spotted it again (on TV) and realized that it had been a loooonng time since I'd seen it.

Is this just a factor of videocasts? But I have high-speed access and other video, such as WH press conferences and even Youtube and such, and I haven't noticed the same phenomenon.

SOOO... Can I believe the words that have been Put Into These People's Mouths or not? I suspect a conspriacy in LC-world

(tongue firmly planted in cheek thusly: -)

Jennie C.
23rd August 2006, 10:38 AM
Smoking is bad for me though. I'm not saying other people shouldn't do it, but I'd rather not have to walk my girlfriend home early because the smoke makes her feel sick, go home and use my asthma inhaler, put all my clothes in the washing, have a shower to rinse the smell out of my hair and clean my glasses, all because someone else wants to die of lung cancer.

Well, it's sorta off-topic, but...

First, no proof of harm from 2nd-hand smoke. None.

More important, guess what? You don't have to goto the restaurant where smoking is allowed. Really, you don't. You can go Somewhere Else.

And no, I don't smoke. And no, I don't like the smell. But I dislike even more having the gov't tell people what they can do with their private property. It's that "pursuit of happiness" thing. I kinda like that thing.

Johnny Pixels
23rd August 2006, 11:27 AM
Well, it's sorta off-topic, but...

I know :)

First, no proof of harm from 2nd-hand smoke. None.

It does make my girlfriend feel ill though, and it does make my clothes and hair smell of smoke, and it does irritate my asthma. It may not be giving me lung cancer, but its still affecting my life.

More important, guess what? You don't have to goto the restaurant where smoking is allowed. Really, you don't. You can go Somewhere Else.

No I can't. All the places I like to go all allow smoking. Why do I have to give up places I like, because people are too attached too killing themselves that they can't go anywhere without lighting up?

You can smoke anywhere you like and ruin it for other people, but why should someone have the right to ruin somewhere nice for other people? You may have the right to smoke anywhere you damnwell please, but that doesn't give you the right to abuse that right and smoke everywhere you damnwell please. Imagine going to the Grand Canyon and have some guy shouting "echo..." all the time you're there. You could go somewhere else. Imagine going to see Buckingham Palace, but outside the gates there's a guy playing a guitar and making some godawful racket. You could go somewhere else.

The point I'm making is that people can smoke anywhere, but I the places I want to go aren't anywhere. They're places I go because I like the place. I can't get that anywhere else, but people can go and smoke somewhere else.

And no, I don't smoke. And no, I don't like the smell. But I dislike even more having the gov't tell people what they can do with their private property. It's that "pursuit of happiness" thing. I kinda like that thing.


But they're not doing it to their private property, it's my clothes, my hair, my glasses, my eyes, my lungs they're affecting. How would you feel if some kids brought stink bombs to all your favourite resteraunts? They'd be pursuing their happiness, but at the cost of a lot of other peoples.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 11:41 AM
So Wolfshade, in the case where they have made their editorial advisory board visible to submitters, do Wilsonweb then consider that board to be the "PEERS" that review, or is that editing board ethically and legally responsible to ensure a proper "PEER" group is chosen to review the paper?

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 11:44 AM
just a quick Google Scholar search on effects/deaths attributed to SH Smoke (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12552286&dopt=Citation)

JAMA INFO PACK ON SHS (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/280/22/1968.pdf)

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd August 2006, 11:48 AM
So Wolfshade, in the case where they have made their editorial advisory board visible to submitters, do Wilsonweb then consider that board to be the "PEERS" that review, or is that editing board ethically and legally responsible to ensure a proper "PEER" group is chosen to review the paper?

I read it to be the second interpretation. I could be wrong however. The second definition is in line with the editor(s) responsibilities as laid out in the wiki article.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 11:48 AM
Removed cause I'm getting way off-topic.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 11:52 AM
so how would one go about finding out who PEER reviewed a particular paper, such as S. Jones. Would that be available via FOIA (doubtful), or would the editors have the right to reveal, or refuse that information?

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 11:54 AM
Hunstman;

I would agree, but I would go further. It is about the rights of the employee to work in a productive, and safe environment. Here in Canada, in my province, you cannot smoke inside anywhere. It is banned from all government buildingas, all bars and pubs, everywhere essentially.

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd August 2006, 12:01 PM
so how would one go about finding out who PEER reviewed a particular paper, such as S. Jones. Would that be available via FOIA (doubtful), or would the editors have the right to reveal, or refuse that information?

My understanding is, that unless the journals protocols are set up in such a manner that they disclose the reviewers identities to the submitting party, that you will not be able to do so. I believe most journals are set up on a system of anonymous review.

Belz...
23rd August 2006, 12:04 PM
No I can't. All the places I like to go all allow smoking. Why do I have to give up places I like, because people are too attached too killing themselves that they can't go anywhere without lighting up?

In Québec, now, you can't smoke in public establishments. Period.

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 12:04 PM
so how would one go about finding out who PEER reviewed a particular paper, such as S. Jones. Would that be available via FOIA (doubtful), or would the editors have the right to reveal, or refuse that information?

FOIA only applies to government entities. The actual reviewers are normally kept secret, you rely on the integrity of the editors and the history of the articles published for the reliability of the papers. In this case that is lacking.

I am curious as to who Jones considered a "peer" for my paper. He said he sent it off for review, before he decided I was ethically suspect. Who did they find that was an "expert" on what a bunch of frauds and nutjobs the "Scholars" are?

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 12:23 PM
My understanding is, that unless the journals protocols are set up in such a manner that they disclose the reviewers identities to the submitting party, that you will not be able to do so. I believe most journals are set up on a system of anonymous review.

If that and what Jamesb said is true, than I think the Journal is a sham, and I will make it my goal, every time an opportunity arises, to discredit that journal. They clearly have an agenda, both the editors, and the advisory panel, as has been exhibited by their public comments and opinions. As a result I feel their agenda would lead them to make poor choices for "PEER" review.

On another topic:

Have a look here:

Prisonplanet article claiming WTC 7 CD because WTC 5,6 suffered more damage and fires (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm)

Brainster
23rd August 2006, 12:36 PM
FOIA only applies to government entities. The actual reviewers are normally kept secret, you rely on the integrity of the editors and the history of the articles published for the reliability of the papers. In this case that is lacking.

I am curious as to who Jones considered a "peer" for my paper. He said he sent it off for review, before he decided I was ethically suspect. Who did they find that was an "expert" on what a bunch of frauds and nutjobs the "Scholars" are?

Cough, cough!:blush:

Gord_in_Toronto
23rd August 2006, 12:39 PM
The UNSC mandate didn't extend to invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. IMHO this was the UN's fatal mistake.

-Andrew

Or you could accept the opinion of your president at the time:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome. Chapter 19, "A World Transformed", 1998, George H. Bush, Senior

A wise son listens to his father.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 12:40 PM
The pool to choose to review Jamesb paper is extremely large, including all those who are....SANE!!!
:)

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 12:42 PM
If that and what Jamesb said is true, than I think the Journal is a sham, and I will make it my goal, every time an opportunity arises, to discredit that journal. They clearly have an agenda, both the editors, and the advisory panel, as has been exhibited by their public comments and opinions. As a result I feel their agenda would lead them to make poor choices for "PEER" review.

On another topic:

Have a look here:

Prisonplanet article claiming WTC 7 CD because WTC 5,6 suffered more damage and fires (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm)

That is another example of them wanting to have it both ways. If buildings 5 and 6 had collapsed completely, they would be using that as evidence that it was controlled demolition too.

If the black boxes were found (the Pentagon and Pennsylvania) that proves they were faked, if they were not found (the WTC) then it was not a real plane.

If no evidence shows up that the hijackers existed (the list of victims) then they did not exist, if the evidence shows that they did exist, airport cameras, passports, then it was faked.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Brainster
23rd August 2006, 12:56 PM
It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.

I found one mention of Doyle Winterton on a forum regarding JBL speakers (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7446):

Doyle Winterton was based in Provo, Utah where his flagship store was located. He only had a brief, minor presence in Ogden (and Salt Lake City somewhat longer), as did Darryl Krantz, owner of Broadway Music who's flagship store was in Salt Lake City. I liked going over to Wintertons occasionaly to listen to Magnaplaners and Bozak Concert Grands.

Provo, Utah, eh? Is anybody else in the "Scholars" based there?;)

Mancman
23rd August 2006, 12:57 PM
On another topic:

Have a look here:

Prisonplanet article claiming WTC 7 CD because WTC 5,6 suffered more damage and fires (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806wtccomplex.htm)

"From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell (WTC5) completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? "

Accompanied by a photo showing fires in about 7 windows on a single floor of WTC5.

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 01:08 PM
Cough, cough!:blush:

Well OK, they could get you, Gravy, 911 Myths, Debunking 9/11 etc. But somehow I doubt that they have such a distinguised panel from which to choose.

Jennie C.
23rd August 2006, 01:16 PM
But they're not doing it to their private property, it's my clothes, my hair, my glasses, my eyes, my lungs they're affecting. How would you feel if some kids brought stink bombs to all your favourite resteraunts? They'd be pursuing their happiness, but at the cost of a lot of other peoples.

It's not the smokers' private property to which I refer. It's the restaurant owner's property. And he (or she, to be PC, which I hardly ever am) should get to decide what goes on on his property. And it's legal.

Dog Town
23rd August 2006, 01:50 PM
It's not the smokers' private property to which I refer. It's the restaurant owner's property. And he (or she, to be PC, which I hardly ever am) should get to decide what goes on on his property. And it's legal.
In the US OSHA started the whole thing. Living in Cali, I am used to it. No one loses on the deal.Not here anyways. Just like when they outlawed it on planes. People freaked, got over it and moved on. I smoke and I have no prob not doing it indoors. I do think it to be rude in a place where food is served! If it's Vegas all bet's are off! Smoke em if ya got em!
Many places have voted it in!

gumboot
23rd August 2006, 02:03 PM
Or you could accept the opinion of your president at the time:

My President?

See that flag at the end of my posts?

He ain't my President.

-Andrew

gumboot
23rd August 2006, 02:11 PM
It's not the smokers' private property to which I refer. It's the restaurant owner's property. And he (or she, to be PC, which I hardly ever am) should get to decide what goes on on his property. And it's legal.

Apart from you thinking there's no evidence to support passive smoking being harmful (ARE YOU HIGH?)...

In June 2006, US Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence against passive smoke "indisputable" and said "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults."

If the local law forbids smoking in restaurants or whatever then it ISN'T legal is it?

Here is my smoking-argument series of filter (no pun intended) questions... which of the following do you agree with?

1) You should be allowed to smoke in public
2) You should be able to pour hazardous waste into public drinking water
3) You should be able to dispense mustard gas in public
4) You should be able to punch people
5) You should be able to kill people

-Andrew

P.S. WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SMOKING?:confused:

ETA. This might be of some interest:

Surgeon General Warns Of Secondhand Smoke (http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/06/27/ap2844315.html)

Johnny Pixels
23rd August 2006, 02:18 PM
P.S. WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SMOKING?:confused:

My bad.

gumboot
23rd August 2006, 02:19 PM
If the LC-guys get to cherry nit-pick the so-called "Official Conspiracy Theory" evidence, than can't I do the same to their video? That's rhetorical.

I'll answer anyway. The Official Story is an orange tree that, due to some biological freak of nature, has the odd cherry on it. Loose Change is a cherry factory.



As I was watching the video, I noticed that virtually NONE (virtually meaning I didn't notice any) of the interviews show the video in sync with the audio.

Since when did LC have interviews in it? :confused: That would involve DA and crew doing actual work.



SOOO... Can I believe the words that have been Put Into These People's Mouths or not? I suspect a conspriacy in LC-world

Cute.

It's very easy to take a person's comments out of context, or take only a segment of their comments, and totally change the meaning of what they are saying. This is documentary filmmaking 101. In addition a lot of LC involves their own "interpretation" of what people are saying - for example the "pull it" comment.

-Andrew

ETA. Welcome to the forums.

Johnny Pixels
23rd August 2006, 02:23 PM
Or you could accept the opinion of your president at the time:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome. Chapter 19, "A World Transformed", 1998, George H. Bush, Senior

A wise son listens to his father.

Important points bolded. Bush Snr talks about starting with the UN mandate and then extending it as the US saw fit. This would mean ad hoc planning, which isn't a good idea when it's unecessary and people's lives are on the line.

This is different from planning to remove Saddam from the start, and planning properly for it.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 02:25 PM
Not sure if anyone already did this, but I took the DFDR data from the NTSB info Mike got via FOIA, used the Altitude curves, to determine at what altitude the "Cellphone" calls were made for AA77 and UA93. I only did it for those calls that were not made by airfone, based on the Moussaoui trial evidence, which shows the rest of the calls coming from a particular row, different from the passengers assigned row, and hence, by inference, had to be sent by airfone (how else could they determine what "row" the call came from)...here it is:


Flight AA77
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Renee May 9:12:18 158seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:15:34 102seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:20:15 274seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:25:48 159seconds (Altitude=13,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:30:56 260seconds (Altitude=7,000 Feet)


Flight UA93
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Edward Felt 9:58:00 unknown (dialed 911) (Altitude=5,500 Feet)


So it seems for at least half these calls, the altitude was under 13,000 Feet, and for the remaining 3, all on AA77, they were not at "Cruising Altitude", but rather, somewhere between 22,500 and 25,000 feet.

Matthew Best
23rd August 2006, 02:27 PM
which of the following do you agree with?

1) You should be allowed to smoke in public
2) You should be able to pour hazardous waste into public drinking water
3) You should be able to dispense mustard gas in public
4) You should be able to punch people
5) You should be able to kill people



With regard to 4) and possibly 5), is the person in question called Killtown?

Dog Town
23rd August 2006, 02:31 PM
which of the following do you agree with?

1) You should be allowed to smoke in public
2) You should be able to pour hazardous waste into public drinking water
3) You should be able to dispense mustard gas in public
4) You should be able to punch people
5) You should be able to kill people

Sematics, I know! You are able to do the above mentioned. You are not allowed to by law 2-5. Cool?

gumboot
23rd August 2006, 02:34 PM
Sematics, I know! You are able to do the above mentioned. You are not allowed to by law 2-5. Cool?

I'm talking personal opinion, not law.

Note the wording is "should". Not "can".

-Andrew

delphi_ote
23rd August 2006, 03:20 PM
I vote poop.
Hey! You can't vote for yourself! That's not fair!

apathoid
23rd August 2006, 03:30 PM
I found one mention of Doyle Winterton on a forum regarding JBL speakers (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7446):

Provo, Utah, eh? Is anybody else in the "Scholars" based there?;)

Is there an ASCE member database online anywhere? I went to the ASCE site and apparently there is an online membership directory, but you need to be a member to search it.

BTW - JBL speakers suck :)

tsig
23rd August 2006, 05:13 PM
That Killtown Jail/banning thread was like...like...I am having a hard time finding the words to describe it.

It was amazing. I have never seen a group turn on one of its most dedicated like that...I mean that would be like people here forcing Gravy or Gumboot our of here...

I feel guilty for enjoying it. For the first time, I actually feel bad for Killtown.

is the moon full. Am I in an alternate dimension...

Killtown chalenged the mods, but I know what you mean. I don't think he saw it coming.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 05:39 PM
The hypocracy in that just kills me.

They proclaim that they are all about challenging the govt. Challenging the Authority....yet when one of there own does it...god help him.

MarkyX
23rd August 2006, 05:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQGZVvhvPA

A preview of Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition

tsig
23rd August 2006, 06:03 PM
The hypocracy in that just kills me.

They proclaim that they are all about challenging the govt. Challenging the Authority....yet when one of there own does it...god help him.

All cults do it. It's hard to keep other prophets from talking to god when you are doing it. Joe Smith wound up banning most of the BoM witnesses. As soon as KT set up his own site he was doomed.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 06:12 PM
MarkyX:

Love the new video. Especially love the "Bars" when you stop the video. If you haven't done so already, feel free to use my calculations above on the altitudes of AA77 and UA93 at the time the "Cellphone" calls were made.

DHR:
so funny, the exact opposite occurs over here at the Debunkers corner. the more sites we create, the more they are embraced, and told to other people.

defaultdotxbe
23rd August 2006, 06:24 PM
All cults do it. It's hard to keep other prophets from talking to god when you are doing it. Joe Smith wound up banning most of the BoM witnesses. As soon as KT set up his own site he was doomed.

KT doesnt even have his own site, part of his anonymity, he goes through blogger, geocities, or other peoples sites, never his own

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 06:44 PM
Not sure if anyone already did this, but I took the DFDR data from the NTSB info Mike got via FOIA, used the Altitude curves, to determine at what altitude the "Cellphone" calls were made for AA77 and UA93. I only did it for those calls that were not made by airfone, based on the Moussaoui trial evidence, which shows the rest of the calls coming from a particular row, different from the passengers assigned row, and hence, by inference, had to be sent by airfone (how else could they determine what "row" the call came from)...here it is:


Flight AA77
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Renee May 9:12:18 158seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:15:34 102seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:20:15 274seconds (Altitude=22,500 to 25,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:25:48 159seconds (Altitude=13,000 Feet)
Unknown 9:30:56 260seconds (Altitude=7,000 Feet)


Flight UA93
--------------

Caller time duration
-------- ------- ----------
Edward Felt 9:58:00 unknown (dialed 911) (Altitude=5,500 Feet)


So it seems for at least half these calls, the altitude was under 13,000 Feet, and for the remaining 3, all on AA77, they were not at "Cruising Altitude", but rather, somewhere between 22,500 and 25,000 feet.

How did you decide the first calls where made from cells? The Ed Felt call is obvious, since he called from the lavatory, but there seems to be some confusion on the others.

SRW
23rd August 2006, 06:58 PM
BTW, I don't have cable. Is anyone planning on TiVo'ing the CNN Bin Laden documentary?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/bin.laden/

I'll try to Tivo it but it is not on the schedule for pacific time (it is running right now 7:00pm) but there is no 10:00 (1:00 eastern) showing. I'll see if I can find a showing and snap it up. It may be on On Demand or an other CNN affiliate.

Jennie C.
23rd August 2006, 07:01 PM
Okay, nobody liked my audio-doesn't-sync-with-the-video post, but that was just for fun anyway. I thot maybe folks would like my turning LC into a conspiracy theory. I guess I'm no good as a CT-nut. Well, that's a relief, but it would be fun to be able to fake it.

Back to the LC2E video: I can't put a time-stamp on it like I could the Where Are The 200 Passengers references (oh yeah, they got smooshed by all the gold bullion-i love it).

BUT, the narrator, whats-his-face, kept talking about the fire bringing down the towers (leaving out WTC7 for the moment). As I watched that, I kept shrieking (yes, I talk to my computer, don't you?) "Remember the part where TWO FREAKIN' JETS HIT THE DAMN' TOWERS?"

(i don't think that's a rule 8 thing...i thot those were mostly vulgarities...i hope not)

Anyway. They always harp on just the fires. Not the gi-normus projectiles that sliced thru the buildings. And we saw them a heckuva lot clearer than we did the fires.

Have to go back and look at my questions again regarding LC2E, but I think I've exhausted those that have any real viability. I mean, I was just being silly about some of my others. Inspired by Something No Doubt.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 07:16 PM
My decision on those calls, was through lack of proof of airfone usage. All other flights, in the Moussaoui trail flash animation of their evidence, show the phone calls of each person with their seating assignments different than the seat row the calls were placed from.

By inference, I deducted that in order for officials to know the seat row the call was placed from, that they must have called from the airfone in that row.

Edward Felts, in the same evidence, indicates, as he did in his call, that he was calling from the lavatory.

For flight AA77, there were no "Seat Row" references for the phone calls, so I assumed, that they were all by cellphone. they may not have been, but if not, if by airfone, then why not put that into the evidence as they did for the other flights.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 07:18 PM
As well, I only used calls that were connected. There were several "call attempts" that I left out.

T.A.M.
23rd August 2006, 07:21 PM
Jennie C.;

Welcome to the JREF "Loose Change" Skeptics forum. Whether you are a Debunker or a CTer, your opinions will be allowed here, if not accepted.

Your last post was amusing (honestly, no sarcasm), but I failed to see a question in it. When you come up with one, let it rip, I am sure you'll get all the answers you could ask for...and more.

JamesB
23rd August 2006, 07:28 PM
My decision on those calls, was through lack of proof of airfone usage. All other flights, in the Moussaoui trail flash animation of their evidence, show the phone calls of each person with their seating assignments different than the seat row the calls were placed from.

By inference, I deducted that in order for officials to know the seat row the call was placed from, that they must have called from the airfone in that row.

Edward Felts, in the same evidence, indicates, as he did in his call, that he was calling from the lavatory.

For flight AA77, there were no "Seat Row" references for the phone calls, so I assumed, that they were all by cellphone. they may not have been, but if not, if by airfone, then why not put that into the evidence as they did for the other flights.

The two AA flights don't list the seat numbers though, even for the calls we know were made on airfones such as Barbara Olson and the flight attendents. The evidence indicates only a few calls were cell phones, but I am still not convinced which ones, other than Felts. One article on the Moussaoui trial mentioned 2 cell phone calls, 35 airfone. Good work overall though, that pretty much backs up our previous hypothesizing.

SRW
23rd August 2006, 07:45 PM
Well, it's sorta off-topic, but...

First, no proof of harm from 2nd-hand smoke. None.



Slight derail here, there is proof that SH smoke is bad, but that is not my post.

We pulled up next to a guy at a light, the guy in the car next to us was smoking, and keeping the cig out side the window when he was not smoking. My buddy asked why he had the cig out the window.

SMOKER "because I smoke through the filter, and do not want to inhale the second hand smoke".

ME: I told him, "you know 9 out of 10 people quit if they smoke by putting the lit ends in their mouths."/ end derail

Gord_in_Toronto
23rd August 2006, 08:07 PM
Important points bolded. Bush Snr talks about starting with the UN mandate and then extending it as the US saw fit. This would mean ad hoc planning, which isn't a good idea when it's unecessary and people's lives are on the line.

This is different from planning to remove Saddam from the start, and planning properly for it.
Since this seems to constitute severe topic drift, I won't persue this further in this thread.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 08:08 PM
Okay, nobody liked my audio-doesn't-sync-with-the-video post, but that was just for fun anyway. I thot maybe folks would like my turning LC into a conspiracy theory. I guess I'm no good as a CT-nut. Well, that's a relief, but it would be fun to be able to fake it.

Back to the LC2E video: I can't put a time-stamp on it like I could the Where Are The 200 Passengers references (oh yeah, they got smooshed by all the gold bullion-i love it).

BUT, the narrator, whats-his-face, kept talking about the fire bringing down the towers (leaving out WTC7 for the moment). As I watched that, I kept shrieking (yes, I talk to my computer, don't you?) "Remember the part where TWO FREAKIN' JETS HIT THE DAMN' TOWERS?"

(i don't think that's a rule 8 thing...i thot those were mostly vulgarities...i hope not)

Anyway. They always harp on just the fires. Not the gi-normus projectiles that sliced thru the buildings. And we saw them a heckuva lot clearer than we did the fires.

Have to go back and look at my questions again regarding LC2E, but I think I've exhausted those that have any real viability. I mean, I was just being silly about some of my others. Inspired by Something No Doubt.
Welcome to the forums, Jennie C. Be sure to check out the other subforums here. It's easy to get single-tracked and miss out on all the other interesting subjects being discussed here.

Here are some links I hope will be helpful to you.

Sites specific to Loose Change

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
This is my LC2E analysis, written after I had about 3 weeks of 9/11 research under my belt. It should answer most of your questions about the claims in that video: check the index. A very extensive revision will be out...soon. The HTML is lovingly crafted by JREFer CuttC. CurtC recently created this website on his own initiative. Please send him a few bucks through the Paypal link on the site to help cover expenses.

My LC Guide is also downloadable as a .doc file. http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

Loose Change Creators Speak is a compilation of interviews I put together, with my commentary. http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
This is the place for two great videos by MarkyXL: Screw Loose Change Video and 9/11 Deniers Speak.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Outstanding research on this blog (It's creators JamesB and Brainster also post here.)

*****
General 9/11 Debunking Sites

http://911myths.com/
The best overall 9/11 debunking site. Go here first for answers. Its creator, MikeW, also posts here occasionally.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
Another great debunking site focusing on the WTC and CD theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Popular Mechanics debunking site

Brainster
23rd August 2006, 08:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQGZVvhvPA

A preview of Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition

Nice job, as usual!

When I first when over there You Tube was down for repairs; of course I immediately assumed that meant that The Man was trying to repress your information from being seen by the people.

defaultdotxbe
23rd August 2006, 08:39 PM
Nice job, as usual!

When I first when over there You Tube was down for repairs; of course I immediately assumed that meant that The Man was trying to repress your information from being seen by the people.

justw ait til he tries to put it on google, we all know what happened last time (although i think google are equal opportunity suppressors, they got dylan too, lol)

LashL
23rd August 2006, 08:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQGZVvhvPA

A preview of Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition

Excellent. Thanks for posting it, Mark. :)

MarkyX
24th August 2006, 04:35 AM
Anyone have a hi-res video of the WTC7 collapse?

StoneWT
24th August 2006, 07:20 AM
MarkyX,

Good stuff with your latest video.

NDBoston
24th August 2006, 07:23 AM
Don't forget it's payday everyone. From the Loosers forum, courtesy of Daniels.



I tend to view very suspiciously anyone who has examined these events and still believes that the gov "blundered".

In my mind the JREFers are all paid agents. Perhaps that is an exaggeration but I can't see any other way intelligent people could fail to see the obvious.

MarkyX
24th August 2006, 07:26 AM
Thanks, just nabbed myself the WTC7 high res and currently at the "light poles ripped out of the ground part". The movie should end up being two hours.

So much information ever since the first one. I'm using everything from the Salon.com article to the Landmark Demolition. I even slapped in the Microsoft Flight Simular 9/11 Pentagon video on YouTube (the last 4 minutes of it)

realitybites
24th August 2006, 07:32 AM
Don't forget it's payday everyone. From the Loosers forum, courtesy of Daniels.
Also... 2nd quarter bonuses are in as well.

Think I'm gonna splurge and buy Uganda.

smother
24th August 2006, 07:39 AM
The hypocracy in that just kills me.

They proclaim that they are all about challenging the govt. Challenging the Authority....yet when one of there own does it...god help him.

They even proclaim ther're fighting fascism. In reality they fight fascism by applying censorship. They ban people faster than they can register. Especially people that contradict the admins. It really boggles the mind that they cannot see the apparant hypocrisy.

I've registered over there - and I'm being extremely cautious when posting. But I know it's just a matter of time.

TjW
24th August 2006, 07:40 AM
Also... 2nd quarter bonuses are in as well.

Think I'm gonna splurge and buy Uganda.

Ahh... I wouldn't bother. I thought I'd made a good deal on China last quarter, but an hour later I was hungry for power again.

JamesB
24th August 2006, 07:41 AM
Don't forget it's payday everyone. From the Loosers forum, courtesy of Daniels.

Where is my check? I want compensation for both this forum and SLC!

Mancman
24th August 2006, 07:50 AM
Don't forget it's payday everyone. From the Loosers forum, courtesy of Daniels.

He's exactly right though. I got my first CIA paycheck today and boy are they generous!

delphi_ote
24th August 2006, 07:51 AM
Don't forget it's payday everyone. From the Loosers forum, courtesy of Daniels.
Globalists get paid on Thursdays?

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 07:59 AM
For us Canadian CIA agents, the Medical Plan is what makes it all worth while...lol

:D

realitybites
24th August 2006, 08:00 AM
Globalists get paid on Thursdays?
Monetarily speaking, yes.

But really, when you think about the warm-fuzzy feeling you get from just being a globalist and spreading the NWO... isn't every day a payday?

delphi_ote
24th August 2006, 08:01 AM
Monetarily speaking, yes.
So I was supposed to be paying my henchman all this time? In money?

I always gave them the leftover socks.

Mancman
24th August 2006, 08:12 AM
That is another example of them wanting to have it both ways. If buildings 5 and 6 had collapsed completely, they would be using that as evidence that it was controlled demolition too.

If the black boxes were found (the Pentagon and Pennsylvania) that proves they were faked, if they were not found (the WTC) then it was not a real plane.

If no evidence shows up that the hijackers existed (the list of victims) then they did not exist, if the evidence shows that they did exist, airport cameras, passports, then it was faked.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Indeed, I really hate it when I see CTists argue this way. I've seen the same thing with the bomb sniffing dogs. They were all removed from the towers, and if they weren't, they were fake.

NDBoston
24th August 2006, 08:13 AM
He's exactly right though. I got my first CIA paycheck today and boy are they generous!

Coke and hookers for everyone....on me!!!

Brainache
24th August 2006, 08:18 AM
My check has been lost in the mail again dammit!
The landlord is getting pretty mad at me.

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 08:21 AM
My check has been lost in the mail again dammit!
The landlord is getting pretty mad at me.

I get paid in Babies' blood and dead puppies.

C'mon, Everyone, to Bohemian Grove!

Trifikas
24th August 2006, 08:25 AM
My check has been lost in the mail again dammit!
The landlord is getting pretty mad at me.

I get paid in Babies' blood and dead puppies.

C'mon, Everyone, to Bohemian Grove!


I'm guessing Abbyas's Landlord is going to be mad at her now, too....

Brainache
24th August 2006, 08:26 AM
I get paid in Babies' blood and dead puppies.

C'mon, Everyone, to Bohemian Grove!

Oh that explains it then. The postal workers have been pilfering my baby blood dead puppy payments before they get here. Bas Tards!!

Johnny Pixels
24th August 2006, 08:31 AM
Don't forget it's payday everyone. From the Loosers forum, courtesy of Daniels.

If I got paid for doing this, I'd be at the Reading Music Festival with my girlfriend. But I don't. So I'm not. :mad:

Belz...
24th August 2006, 09:20 AM
Globalists get paid on Thursdays?

Only officially.

So I was supposed to be paying my henchman all this time? In money?

I always gave them the leftover socks.

UNION STRIKE!

I get paid in Babies' blood and dead puppies.

WHAT ?? That was supposed to be ME! How I am supposed to supply my cultists, now ??

delphi_ote
24th August 2006, 09:46 AM
UNION STRIKE!
And how do you know the strike isn't a part of my master plan? While you're out there picketing, you might actually be doing your job!

Come back to me. You know you love the work. I've got a pair of Polo black and green plaid wool socks with your name on them. All you have to do is send bob_kark five PMs which include the word "taco" and we'll forget this ugly incident ever happened...

Belz...
24th August 2006, 09:47 AM
And how do you know the strike isn't a part of my master plan? While you're out there picketing, you might actually be doing your job!

How would that be a bad thing ? That's like killing two towns birds with one stone. Rebel AND do your job!!

Come back to me. You know you love the work. I've got a pair of Polo black and green plaid wool socks with your name on them. All you have to do is send bob_kark five PMs which include the word "taco" and we'll forget this ugly incident ever happened...

Done and DONE!

chipmunk stew
24th August 2006, 09:49 AM
And how do you know the strike isn't a part of my master plan? While you're out there picketing, you might actually be doing your job!

Come back to me. You know you love the work. I've got a pair of Polo black and green plaid wool socks with your name on them. All you have to do is send bob_kark five PMs which include the word "taco" and we'll forget this ugly incident ever happened...
Speaking of your master plan, someone's been talking:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62458
:mad:

Joytown
24th August 2006, 10:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zQGZVvhvPA

A preview of Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition

Looks great MarkyX

One minor grammar nitpick and one thought/suggestion.

Nitpick: At the 2:27 mark the caption reads: "There is no similarities between 9/11 and Operation Northwoods." Should be either "is no similarity" or "are no similarities" ;-)

Thought/Suggestion: In the opening section with the quotes and you point out that they are all out of context and that the when and where are missing. Then you ask "why leave this information out?" which sort of leaves a hanging "just asking questions" taste in my mouth. Perhaps it could read "If you are seeking the truth, why leave this information out?" or "Why leave this information out unless it's to use the quotes as slanted propaganda?" or something along those lines. Again, just a thought!

-Joytown

Joytown
24th August 2006, 12:22 PM
I'd like to propose that Gravy's post below be "sticky"'d to the top of the Conspiracy Theory board making it an easy-to-find one stop shop for information for visitors to the board for debunking and researching 9/11 CT's.

In addition I'd add some source material:

9/11 Commission:
www.9-11commission.gov
9/11 Commission Report:
www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

9/11 NIST WTC Reports:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Anyone have links to the Strucural Engineering reports, Controlled Demolition Study, etc. Be helpful here too, I think.

Just a thought -

-Joytown


Welcome to the forums, Jennie C. Be sure to check out the other subforums here. It's easy to get single-tracked and miss out on all the other interesting subjects being discussed here.

Here are some links I hope will be helpful to you.

Sites specific to Loose Change

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/
This is my LC2E analysis, written after I had about 3 weeks of 9/11 research under my belt. It should answer most of your questions about the claims in that video: check the index. A very extensive revision will be out...soon. The HTML is lovingly crafted by JREFer CuttC. CurtC recently created this website on his own initiative. Please send him a few bucks through the Paypal link on the site to help cover expenses.

My LC Guide is also downloadable as a .doc file. http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

Loose Change Creators Speak is a compilation of interviews I put together, with my commentary. http://tinyurl.com/s8ouv

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
This is the place for two great videos by MarkyXL: Screw Loose Change Video and 9/11 Deniers Speak.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Outstanding research on this blog (It's creators JamesB and Brainster also post here.)

*****
General 9/11 Debunking Sites

http://911myths.com/
The best overall 9/11 debunking site. Go here first for answers. Its creator, MikeW, also posts here occasionally.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
Another great debunking site focusing on the WTC and CD theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Popular Mechanics debunking site

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 12:33 PM
Hey, more imploding!

Has anyone mentioned this yet?

It's Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood vs. Steven Jones. Ooooooh.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

CurtC
24th August 2006, 12:37 PM
And the LC children are now turning on Jones: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395&st=0&#entry6880200

There has been speculation from a few others that there is more to Steven Jones then we like to admit, I have been a little on the fence about him from the start as well.

This latest piece has you make you wonder quite a bit.

This is much more entertaining than back when skeptics were allowed to post there.

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 12:37 PM
And now, NOW, Steven Jones is a government shill!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395

Edit: Oops, CurtC got it first.

Brainster
24th August 2006, 12:39 PM
Hey, more imploding!

Has anyone mentioned this yet?

It's Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood vs. Steven Jones. Ooooooh.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones

Outstanding! It explains Wood's resignation from the "Scholars", and brings back the Keebler Elves!

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 12:41 PM
It's Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood vs. Steven Jones. Ooooooh.

I'm Jack the ripper! No,... I'm Jack the ripper! Lather ,rinse ,repeat!

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 12:42 PM
Outstanding! It explains Wood's resignation from the "Scholars", and brings back the Keebler Elves!

I can't wait to run into these guys at GZ who say, "the scholars, blah, blah" and I get to say, "Which ones?!"

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 12:51 PM
This is amazing.

Wood and Reynolds slam Jones on his splicing videotape, using adjusted photos, getting the temperature/color chart for metals wrong, etc, etc, his demeanor, the cold-fusion stuff.

ETA: And then they also get on him for ignoring "no planer" evidence.

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 12:54 PM
Feeding Frenzy of Wooooooo proportions!

Arkan_Wolfshade
24th August 2006, 12:54 PM
This is amazing.

Wood and Reynolds slam Jones on his splicing videotape, using adjusted photos, getting the temperature/color chart for metals wrong, etc, etc, his demeanor, the cold-fusion stuff.

ETA: And then they also get on him for ignoring "no planer" evidence.

I'm enjoying this with sadistic glee normally reserved for evil geniuses whose plans have come to fruition... oh... wait... nm

twinstead
24th August 2006, 12:58 PM
I swear these newest developments look like some kind of religious schism. Could this be the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds of the 'truth' movement?

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 01:03 PM
To find the troof you must silence many! JDX

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 01:11 PM
Evil turns in upon itself...
Evil eats its own young...

I remember MarkyX and I about ohh...3 weeks ago having a discussion where I prophecized this...

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 01:12 PM
Beatles had it right...

...and in the end...the love you take...is equal to the love...you make....

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 01:14 PM
Beatles had it right...

...and in the end...the love you take...is equal to the love...you make....

Yes!

And the BS you toss out there comes right back, hits you on the face and ruins your good shirt.

Kent1
24th August 2006, 01:14 PM
Looks like Judy Wood has become even MORE radical and teamed up with the no-planers-mini-nuke-space-laser-beam crowd.

LOL!!
Even though they attack Jones quite a bit, there's very little of value in this document.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones#Overview

ob986s
24th August 2006, 01:23 PM
Hey, more imploding!

Has anyone mentioned this yet?

It's Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood vs. Steven Jones. Ooooooh.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones


And just barely in and here it is:

Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.

I can not believe that there are people who treat these idiots seriously

jon

Kent1
24th August 2006, 01:27 PM
And just barely in and here it is:



I can not believe that there are people who treat these idiots seriously

jon

Figure 6(: The rubble was not deep enough to reach the undercarriage of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles in the background look full height.:jaw-dropp Bah ha ha ha.....

jhunter1163
24th August 2006, 01:28 PM
Let me see if I have this straight:

Leading Truthers are attacking each other, each claiming that the others' theories are flawed and the particular theory that the speaker espouses is the ONE TRUE theory. Each Truther provides documentation proving that the others' theories are flawed.

From this, we can logically conclude that all "Truth" theories are flawed.

The Truthers have debunked themselves. We win. You can all go home now. It's been fun.

John

realitybites
24th August 2006, 01:28 PM
Feeding Frenzy of Wooooooo proportions!
Dude.... This kicks Shark Week's a$$!!

I'm gonna go home, pop in Jaws, and pretend Wood's the shark and Jones is Quint. And it will make me giggle.

(Roy Scheider is, of course, all of us here. Smile you son of a [rule8]!)

Sir Knight
24th August 2006, 01:31 PM
Gravy you have a PM.

Abbyas
24th August 2006, 01:33 PM
I'm gonna go home, pop in Jaws, and pretend Wood's the shark and Jones is Quint. And it will make me giggle.

I'm not talking about pleasure boatin'. I'm talking about working for a livin'. I'm talking about dental engineerin'.

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 01:36 PM
dun dun

dun dun dun dun

dun dun dun dun dun dun salsa shark!

wait...wrong movie...

Gravy
24th August 2006, 01:37 PM
Hey, more imploding!

Has anyone mentioned this yet?

It's Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood vs. Steven Jones. Ooooooh.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones
:dl:

It's the pot (over his head) calling the kettle melted!

CurtC
24th August 2006, 01:40 PM
Beatles had it right...

...and in the end...the love you take...is equal to the love...you make....
I can't read those words without then singing to myself "Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she doesn't have a lot to say..."

Arkan_Wolfshade
24th August 2006, 01:43 PM
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. - William Butler Yeats: "The Second Coming" (1921) stanza 1

realitybites
24th August 2006, 01:44 PM
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. - William Butler Yeats: "The Second Coming" (1921) stanza 1
Huh... Yeats is in on this thing too.

Schweeeeeeeeet.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 01:45 PM
IF there is one thing (no there are many) that I have learned about "Scholars" and "scientists" (and hey, I is one, so I can makes fun of one..), it is this:

They are competetive to the extreme, covet power and fame, and always want to finish first and on top (i know that is three or four, so sue me)...

What you are seeing here, is similar to the struggle to find the "cure" for AIDS that went on in the late 80's. They are all trying to claw there way to the top of the heap...

that or Woods has a thing for Reynolds, and S. Jones had a thing for Woods.....lol

ktesibios
24th August 2006, 01:47 PM
I'm Jack the ripper! No,... I'm Jack the ripper! Lather ,rinse ,repeat!

Reminded me of some famous last words:

"I am Jack the..."

-Dr. Harvey Neill Cream, as he went through the gallows trapdoor.

Gravy
24th August 2006, 01:50 PM
So, Judy Wood has her Keebler Elves, and Morgan Reynolds has his...

ROADRUNNER ???

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ee0fcd52335.jpg

I don't think I can take much more of this. Killtown, Sir Knight, and stark, barking mad clowns with advanced degrees.

JamesB
24th August 2006, 01:52 PM
Outstanding! It explains Wood's resignation from the "Scholars", and brings back the Keebler Elves!

Gee, now where have I heard this before?

Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

Grundar
24th August 2006, 02:01 PM
More fun from the LC forums . They are still going on with the chemtrails. :D
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10556&st=60

Kent1
24th August 2006, 02:06 PM
I think ego and attention drives a lot of the "scholars."
When one gets too popular the others have to knock him or her down.

Brainster
24th August 2006, 02:14 PM
I think ego and attention drives a lot of the "scholars."
When one gets to popular the others have to knock him or her down.

What's the old joke about academia? The fights are bitter because the stakes are so small.:D

mrfreeze
24th August 2006, 02:17 PM
Steven Jones is a setup to mislead and hurt the truth.


This is entirely possible.

Steven Jones also thinks the government let "Alqaeda' hijack the planes? Are you kidding me? I guess Jones also thinks AlQaeda did the London and Spain bombings as well? Who here thinks THAT?!

You know, from anyone else in the world I would take that as a joke, but from a moderator on the LC forums? Sadly I believe it.

mrfreeze
24th August 2006, 02:19 PM
Oh yeah, and re: chemtrails

Now that's a good question.

I certainly think the chemtrails are responsible for the recentl mentioned 'global dimming'.

chipmunk stew
24th August 2006, 02:22 PM
Hey, more imploding!

Has anyone mentioned this yet?

It's Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood vs. Steven Jones. Ooooooh.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones
:jaw-dropp Holy cow! They basically discredit his craziest theory (thermite) because it isn't crazy enough for them!

brodski
24th August 2006, 02:22 PM
Oh yeah, and re: chemtrails

Quote:
Now that's a good question.

I certainly think the chemtrails are responsible for the recentl mentioned 'global dimming'.



I actually agree, the more people around the world who believe in "chemtrails", the dimmer the global population seems. ;)

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 02:25 PM
The sad thing is that they think from these "ashes" a "Phoenix" will rise...too bad they are starting with such a lame duck...lol

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 02:25 PM
Holy cow! They basically discredit his craziest theory (thermite) because it isn't crazy enough for them!

There's your sign!

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 02:36 PM
Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones' paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones' background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," perhaps the biggest scientific scandal of the last half-century. Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.

This is how WOODS and REYNOLDS now portray/feel about Jones. A far cry from the praise he recieved oh so long ago...

chipmunk stew
24th August 2006, 02:40 PM
And now, NOW, Steven Jones is a government shill!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395

Edit: Oops, CurtC got it first.
I wonder which side Uncle Fetzer will come down on?

:popcorn1

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 02:42 PM
Man, I thought the Killtown thing was like a car crash you couldn't turn away from, but this is just sad...

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 02:43 PM
I wonder which side Uncle Fetzer will come down on?

:popcorn1

i suspect he wont make a statement until he sees which way the bulk of the movement swings

Brainster
24th August 2006, 02:44 PM
I wonder which side Uncle Fetzer will come down on?

:popcorn1

Reynolds is no longer listed as a member of the "Scholars".

Kent1
24th August 2006, 02:47 PM
Check out the meltdown over here. Some people just CAN'T believe that smoke is coming out of building 7 no matter how many pictures and videos you show them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=109989&mesg_id=109989

Gravy
24th August 2006, 02:55 PM
Inspired by Realitybites and by the Jones/Wood/Reynolds battle royale, I've come up with a new term. It's to be used when a CT's argument gets more and more complex, as when Reynolds says that thermite couldn't have brought down the towers, so high-energy weapons must have been involved. "Smacco's Rozar," the Occam's Razor of the Bizarro World. Whenever you see it invoked, you must smack your self on the forehead.

JamesB
24th August 2006, 02:58 PM
i suspect he wont make a statement until he sees which way the bulk of the movement swings

Fetzer picked Jones as a co-founder, and has built him up in status, so I would imagine he would stick with him. Ironically he has also been pushing Wood and her Keelber elves.

Pardalis
24th August 2006, 03:00 PM
Whenever you see it invoked, you must smack your self on the forehead.

And be sure it shuts down your "frontal lobe" real good.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 03:00 PM
ROFLMAO

better not let the scholars at "Smacco's Razor", besides accidentally cutting themselves with it, they might purposely kill each other with it

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 03:02 PM
If you was to hazzard a guess. Who wields greater Woooo power, LC, or The "stoners",oops....."Scholars"?

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 03:10 PM
You guys are not going to believe this, but guess who is the voice of reason over at the LC forum wrt to Jones/Woods/Reynolds....

" I dont understand why so many people are attacking Steve Jones.. he's just learning like the rest of us.

I also cannot understand how anyone can commit to any theory, until that theory is proven.

Granted, i havent read the full article. But arent we all trying to learn and get to the truth? Some of us are on different levels of our research. Why are people bashing Jones as he is trying to get to the truth?

So what if he thinks Al Quada is responsible and Jones appears more of a LIHOP researcher. Let him continue his research until al lthe facts are available.

Am i wrong in saying this? Or should everyone be a MIHOP out of the box..."
- JohndoeX

Yup thats right...lol...the apocalypse is upon us...

Gravy
24th August 2006, 03:19 PM
If you was to hazzard a guess. Who wields greater Woooo power, LC, or The "stoners",oops....."Scholars"?
I think they're complementary. People know the LC guys aren't exactly whiz kids at science, so backing up LC's claims with the Scholars' work lends them "credibility." And from the Loosers the Scholars get a much wider, younger audience than they could attract on their own. In terms of overall influence, I would guess LC, by a very large margin.

mrfreeze
24th August 2006, 03:22 PM
Real quick, does anyone have a link to the Woods Keebler Elf powerpoint thing offhand? I want to show it to the g/f because she doesn't believe me that someone could be that bizarre.

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 03:26 PM
Check out the meltdown over here. Some people just CAN'T believe that smoke is coming out of building 7 no matter how many pictures and videos you show them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=109989&mesg_id=109989

they always say the smoke is photoshopped, yet no one can seem to come up with the original image of WTC7 without the smoke

JamesB
24th August 2006, 03:27 PM
Real quick, does anyone have a link to the Woods Keebler Elf powerpoint thing offhand? I want to show it to the g/f because she doesn't believe me that someone could be that bizarre.

I did a whole series of posts on it, this one has the link.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/keebler-elves-part-ii.html

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 03:32 PM
I did a whole series of posts on it, this one has the link.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/keebler-elves-part-ii.html

Made with PowerPoint version 2001, Mac OS9

these scholars are pretty behind the time IMO

Brainster
24th August 2006, 03:36 PM
Inspired by Realitybites and by the Jones/Wood/Reynolds battle royale, I've come up with a new term. It's to be used when a CT's argument gets more and more complex, as when Reynolds says that thermite couldn't have brought down the towers, so high-energy weapons must have been involved. "Smacco's Rozar," the Occam's Razor of the Bizarro World. Whenever you see it invoked, you must smack your self on the forehead.

Check out this post on the Looser Forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395&view=findpost&p=6882095), quoting Rick Siegel (the child prodigy):

However, while I believe that thermate may have been used to initiate the collapse in conjunction with cutting charges such as RDX, it cannot begin to explain the observed evidence at the WTC and therefore I feel that we must now include fusion devices as well in our demolition hypothesis and research.

The significance of this line of research is that while thermate alone could be blamed on a small group of individuals impossible to identify, fusion devices can only be supplied by the US and/or Israeli military, according to a Finnish military expert I have consulted.

Yep, Rick Siegel is lecturing Steven Jones on fusion devices.:boggled:

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 03:43 PM
why is it that none of these CTers realize fusion devices have a minimum yeild in the hundreds of kilotons (thats 10-20 times a "hiroshima bomb")

anyone see one of these in new york?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/images/nagasaki-001.jpg

Kent1
24th August 2006, 03:45 PM
I get tired of this one from Jeff King
"The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains)"

No it didn't evaporate. It just fell. Watch the video.
http://911blimp.net/vid_WTC1spire.shtml

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 03:45 PM
Yep, Rick Siegel is lecturing Steven Jones on fusion devices.:boggled:

Didn't you know? there is no Manhatten anymore, the entire area is a hologram...
That's the reason the GUBMINT let global warming keep happening; so no one would notice the nuclear winter!!!!

:D

apathoid
24th August 2006, 03:46 PM
Check out this post on the Looser Forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395&view=findpost&p=6882095), quoting Rick Siegel (the child prodigy):



Yep, Rick Siegel is lecturing Steven Jones on fusion devices.:boggled:

So they brought down the WTCs with Thermite, RdX, and mini-fusion bombs?
That would certainly explain the squibs, pulverized concrete, molten steel pools, EMPs and faster than gravity demolition... :rolleyes:

Brainster
24th August 2006, 03:46 PM
why is it that none of these CTers realize fusion devices have a minimum yeild in the hundreds of kilotons (thats 10-20 times a "hiroshima bomb")

anyone see one of these in new york?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/images/nagasaki-001.jpg

It was a nano-fusion bomb, using Karl Schwarz's patented nanotube technology.

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 03:46 PM
So they brought down the WTCs with Thermite, RdX, and mini-fusion bombs?
That would certainly explain the squibs, pulverized concrete, molten steel pools, EMPs and faster than gravity demolition... :rolleyes:

I think they used M-80s and Lady Fingers, too.

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 03:48 PM
It was a nano-fusion bomb, using Karl Schwarz's patented nanotube technology.

ah yes, i forgot smaccos razor, use the unnecessary and untested weapons instead of a tried-and-true method of blwoing soemthign up :)

realitybites
24th August 2006, 03:49 PM
I wonder which side Uncle Fetzer will come down on?

:popcorn1
I'm guessing whichever provides the most "brilliant", "fantastic", or "absolutely fascinating" uhmmm... evidence?

I'm gonna go get some chips and salsa. Anyone need a beer while I'm up?

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 03:49 PM
Hey, does anyone whatch "Eureka" on the SciFi channel?

I bet they used one of those ionosphere laser death rays from the last episode...I mean, that was made back in the sixties!!

:D

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 03:51 PM
Hey, does anyone whatch "Eureka" on the SciFi channel?

I bet they used one of those ionosphere laser death rays from the last episode...I mean, that was made back in the sixties!!

:D

add the producers to the list of "closet truthers"

Johnny Pixels
24th August 2006, 03:54 PM
I did have a look at the yield of a suitcase size nuke. The smallest nuclear weapon is the W54 Davy Crockett, yield 0.01 Kilotonnes, so that's 10 tonnes of conventional explosives, or just over 2.5 on the richter scale.

Except that's not on the seismograph readings.

Mr. Skinny
24th August 2006, 03:57 PM
why is it that none of these CTers realize fusion devices have a minimum yeild in the hundreds of kilotons (thats 10-20 times a "hiroshima bomb")

anyone see one of these in new york?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/images/nagasaki-001.jpg

Yes, but it is clearly too large to have come from the World Trade Center. The mushroom cloud came from an explosion near the WTC caused by an ordnance explosion to make it look like the WTC was struck by a plane.

That photo was Photoshopped, as you can tell, as there is no burnt grass or other vegitation at the base of the WTC.

You guys will never prove your theory.

Edited to remove redundancy repetition.

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 03:59 PM
I did have a look at the yield of a suitcase size nuke. The smallest nuclear weapon is the W54 Davy Crockett, yield 0.01 Kilotonnes, so that's 10 tonnes of conventional explosives, or just over 2.5 on the richter scale.

Except that's not on the seismograph readings.

if it was suspended in the middle of the building it might register lower (c'mon truthers! were actually HELPING you sound less rediculous here!)

i would imagine they could also reduce the ground shaking by directing the blast in one direction or another so the shockwave doesnt transfer to the ground

but im sure the truthers would rather stick with the nano-fusion lo-rad hushaboom vibro-damping device

Johnny Pixels
24th August 2006, 04:01 PM
if it was suspended in the middle of the building it might register lower (c'mon truthers! were actually HELPING you sound less rediculous here!)

i would imagine they could also reduce the ground shaking by directing the blast in one direction or another so the shockwave doesnt transfer to the ground

but im sure the truthers would rather stick with the nano-fusion lo-rad hushaboom vibro-damping device

And the collapse still started at the top, so any idea of maassive bombs, is still no good. It's not the size, it's how you use it...

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 04:04 PM
And the collapse still started at the top, so any idea of maassive bombs, is still no good. It's not the size, it's how you use it...

well my reasoning would be they used th ebomb to blow out the impact point and initiate the collapse

but you still cant make truthers happy, this assumes the collapse of the floors above impacts had enough potential energy to take the collapse all the way to the ground

Mr. Skinny
24th August 2006, 04:10 PM
if it was suspended in the middle of the building it might register lower (c'mon truthers! were actually HELPING you sound less rediculous here!)
*ahem* It's ridiculous, as in "subject to ridicule". Not to get on you in particular, defaultdotxbe, but I see this on JREF and from "truthers" alike. [/pedant]

Pet peeve. And I'm an engineer. As a group, I think we suck at grammar and spelling.

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 04:11 PM
Well, there is a problem with small nukes, though. The percentage of energy released from a nuke is split into blast, flash (heat), and radiation. As a nuke gets smaller, more of it's energy goes into radiation than blast or flash. So even a briefcase nuke would deposit a significant radiation hazard.

mrfreeze
24th August 2006, 04:13 PM
But see, that's why the people working at ground zero got so sick later on! It all fits! Fight the Illuminati!

Although how true is it that rescue workers are getting ill?

Johnny Pixels
24th August 2006, 04:16 PM
well my reasoning would be they used th ebomb to blow out the impact point and initiate the collapse

but you still cant make truthers happy, this assumes the collapse of the floors above impacts had enough potential energy to take the collapse all the way to the ground

Oh, there'd be so much heat and light, and radiation and death. People would've been blinded, blistered, the dust wouldn't have fallen down, the resulting heat would've caused a fireball to rise up, drawing up the air and dust beneath it in a massive convection current, forming the mushroom cloud, and the wind from this would've drawn smoke back towards the tower. People's lungs would've most likely collapsed, they'd be fighting for air, the shockwave would've broken most of the windows in downtown Manhattan.

That's why people don't use nuclear weapons.

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 04:20 PM
Oh, there'd be so much heat and light, and radiation and death. People would've been blinded, blistered, the dust wouldn't have fallen down, the resulting heat would've caused a fireball to rise up, drawing up the air and dust beneath it in a massive convection current, forming the mushroom cloud, and the wind from this would've drawn smoke back towards the tower. People's lungs would've most likely collapsed, they'd be fighting for air, the shockwave would've broken most of the windows in downtown Manhattan.

That's why people don't use nuclear weapons.

i never said my theory was perfect, but i still think it sbetter than the truthers (at least the technology to carry mine out exists, lol, and it actually would only take one person to plant a w54, they only weigh liek 50 pounds)

Johnny Pixels
24th August 2006, 04:24 PM
i never said my theory was perfect, but i still think it sbetter than the truthers (at least the technology to carry mine out exists, lol, and it actually would only take one person to plant a w54, they only weigh liek 50 pounds)

Yeah, it's a better theory, but I've noticed that skeptics are much better at coming up with realistic plans to destroy things than CTists. Look at Mythbusters for example :D

Kent1
24th August 2006, 04:33 PM
Looks like the no-planers are causing more of a split inside the group
http://www.911tvfakery.net/

This week st911.org members Cathy Garger and Andrew Lowe Watson signed as 14th and 15th member of the 9/11 Scholars to support a release of a scientific paper at journalof911studies.com to inform the public on the findings of "9/11TVfakery"/"no planes-forensic evidence".
The paper will be written by Rick Rajter, supportive of these findings.
LOL!!

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 04:36 PM
Don't even get me started on Rajter. The only engineering student who's bio is filled with his athletic accomplishments over his academic ones....

LashL
24th August 2006, 04:42 PM
I can't wait to run into these guys at GZ who say, "the scholars, blah, blah" and I get to say, "Which ones?!"

Oh my, yes! That will be PERFECT!

I love the smell of woo-woos imploding in the morning.

WildCat
24th August 2006, 05:00 PM
Just read all of today's posts in this thread, I have to say this was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time! It's like all the stupidity over there reached critical mass and exploded in an enormous fireball of paranoia, delusion, and idiocy.

Yep, Bush/Cheney/Silverstein will be led away in handcuffs any day now for staging 9/11... :dl:

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 05:04 PM
It's like all the stupidity over there reached critical mass and exploded in an enormous fireball of paranoia, delusion, and idiocy.

the nuclear controlled demolition of the truth movement, resulting in it falling faster than freefall into its own footprint

Belz...
24th August 2006, 05:18 PM
This is amazing.

Wood and Reynolds slam Jones on his splicing videotape, using adjusted photos, getting the temperature/color chart for metals wrong, etc, etc, his demeanor, the cold-fusion stuff.

ETA: And then they also get on him for ignoring "no planer" evidence.

All this is expected. I mean, when you have people disregarding reality for fantasy, their opinions tend to get more and more subjective. Of course, rarely as deluded as Sir Knight or Killtown, but enough so that they each end up in their respective, incompatible corners and start shouting at each other.

Chalk one more point for reality. There's only ONE of those.

realitybites
24th August 2006, 05:18 PM
I just threw up, I laughed so hard reading this. Opening paragraph of Reynold's Overview section:
Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government's lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
I bolded the funny s***, and underlined and italicized the stuff that made me puke. That's right.... he credits Spooked (aka "Picture Pages") as being a leading researcher.

The guy who drew a plane on notebook paper.

The guy who flew popsicle stick airplanes into cardboard towers (or something along those lines).

The guy who's convinced no plane ever hit the South Tower.

.... oh.

And Killtown.

JamesB
24th August 2006, 05:19 PM
Check out the top of the ST911 site. Jones is asserting his power

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).

--Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower

Respect my authoritay!

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/images/cartman_cop.jpg

Belz...
24th August 2006, 05:21 PM
Inspired by Realitybites and by the Jones/Wood/Reynolds battle royale, I've come up with a new term. It's to be used when a CT's argument gets more and more complex, as when Reynolds says that thermite couldn't have brought down the towers, so high-energy weapons must have been involved. "Smacco's Rozar," the Occam's Razor of the Bizarro World. Whenever you see it invoked, you must smack your self on the forehead.

Me am not agree!

Belz...
24th August 2006, 05:25 PM
Well, there is a problem with small nukes, though. The percentage of energy released from a nuke is split into blast, flash (heat), and radiation. As a nuke gets smaller, more of it's energy goes into radiation than blast or flash. So even a briefcase nuke would deposit a significant radiation hazard.

Damn. Is there ANYTHING that SOME JREFer doesn't know ?

Belz...
24th August 2006, 05:28 PM
I just threw up, I laughed so hard reading this. Opening paragraph of Reynold's Overview section:

I bolded the funny s***, and underlined and italicized the stuff that made me puke. That's right.... he credits Spooked (aka "Picture Pages") as being a leading researcher.

The guy who drew a plane on notebook paper.

The guy who flew popsicle stick airplanes into cardboard towers (or something along those lines).

The guy who's convinced no plane ever hit the South Tower.

.... oh.

And Killtown.

Now THAT is funny. Not quite my funniest moment of the week, however...

THIS (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1872580&postcount=2525): "The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole. " Is the funniest thing I've heard all week...

Brainster
24th August 2006, 05:35 PM
Don't even get me started on Rajter. The only engineering student who's bio is filled with his athletic accomplishments over his academic ones....

Well, he's certainly one of the winners of the master race. :p

gumboot
24th August 2006, 06:00 PM
He's exactly right though. I got my first CIA paycheck today and boy are they generous!

For us Canadian CIA agents, the Medical Plan is what makes it all worth while...lol

:D

Monetarily speaking, yes.

But really, when you think about the warm-fuzzy feeling you get from just being a globalist and spreading the NWO... isn't every day a payday?

Coke and hookers for everyone....on me!!!

I get paid in Babies' blood and dead puppies.

C'mon, Everyone, to Bohemian Grove!

Come on now people.

Something tells me you're not taking this seriously...

-Andrew

jhunter1163
24th August 2006, 06:02 PM
From www.911tvfakery.net

... When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft evidence like videos, "many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data recorders, an alleged consensus of Scholars' (capital "S") in favor of airliners and calls for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones says videos "clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels reflect reality or is the jet liner image inserted?

Video is SOFT evidence? Hundreds of eyewitness reports all saying the same thing is soft evidence?

SmacOn, apply directly to the forehead...
SmacOn, apply directly to the forehead...
SmacOn, apply directly to the forehead...

Jennie C.
24th August 2006, 06:05 PM
More fun from the LC forums . They are still going on with the chemtrails. :D

Awww, I do not have "permission to view this topic."

negativ
24th August 2006, 06:06 PM
Check out the top of the ST911 site.

Bleh. I'd never gone there before. Loved this, though:

"...As retired software engineer in the aerospace industry Joseph Keith says, "Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing," "No nothing." The videos are fake.

I'm no genius, and I'm certainly a babe in the woods when it comes to physics, but living in Tornado Alley (http://wwwa.accuweather.com/adcbin/public/community_blog.asp?webcaster=COMMUNITY&date=2006-06-23_1829) all my life, and having a father who was an avid outdoorsman and firearms enthusiast taught me that velocity counts for a lot in how two objects behave when one strikes another.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 06:14 PM
Guys;

I am in the early stages of writing a commentary on Kevin Ryans recent Journal of 9/11 Studies paper, and as a result, I need some links to what exactly John Skilling said about the construction of the WTCs. I do not want to trust what Ryan has said he said, as we all know how they cherry pick...

anyone? anyone?

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 06:14 PM
You mean the perps would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner?

yeah, they faked that jetliner in the pentagon gate camera too....

....then some intern screwed up and released the "beta" copy with no jet in it

Jennie C.
24th August 2006, 06:16 PM
I'm guessing whichever provides the most "brilliant", "fantastic", or "absolutely fascinating" uhmmm... evidence?

I'm gonna go get some chips and salsa. Anyone need a beer while I'm up?

Hey, a beer is welcome anytime. Got any Fosters?

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 06:17 PM
I'm no genius, and I'm certainly a babe in the woods when it comes to physics, but living in Tornado Alley (http://wwwa.accuweather.com/adcbin/public/community_blog.asp?webcaster=COMMUNITY&date=2006-06-23_1829) all my life, and having a father who was an avid outdoorsman and firearms enthusiast taught me that velocity counts for a lot in how two objects behave when one strikes another.

ive quoted this here before, but here it is again

The mechanical properties of a projectile
depends on its speed. For example, if I take a soft lead bullet and press it
slowly against a steel plate, say 0.5 cm thick, using a mechanical press, it
would deform into a lead disc and the steel plate would be largely
unaffected. However, if I take the same soft lead bullet and it's fired from
a 0.357 Magnum, it would easily blow a large hole in the same steel plate.
The difference is that deformation of a projectile takes a certain amount of
time to occur. If the impact time is very short compared to this
characteristic time of deformation, the mechanical properties of the object
will be very different. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Another example,
if I jump into a lake from a height of 1 meter, I just sink and make a
splash -- no harm. But if I jump into the same lake from an airplane at 1000
meters above the surface, I'm a pancake. I might just as well hit solid
ground. The reason is: at the speed with which I hit the water is so fast,
the water does not have time to "get out of the way" so it becomes
essentially a solid. This is what happens to straws etc. driven by tornadic
winds. They become projectiles, like an arrow.

Jennie C.
24th August 2006, 06:22 PM
Oh my, yes! That will be PERFECT!

I love the smell of woo-woos imploding in the morning.

Okay, I think I've figured out most of the acronyms around here (some people think I Perfected "btw" back in the old CompuServe days).

Am I right that ETA is "edited to add"?

But what the heck is a woo?

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 06:32 PM
The Asia branch of CTers opened a restaurant! I can't believe anyone would even make the sign!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5275866.stm

LashL
24th August 2006, 06:33 PM
Guys;

I am in the early stages of writing a commentary on Kevin Ryans recent Journal of 9/11 Studies paper, and as a result, I need some links to what exactly John Skilling said about the construction of the WTCs. I do not want to trust what Ryan has said he said, as we all know how they cherry pick...

anyone? anyone?

Here's the Seattle Times archived story, T.A.M., that Ryan cites.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227


Note that Ryan failed to include the whole quote *surprise surprise* - conveniently leaving out the bolded part: "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

apathoid
24th August 2006, 06:33 PM
But what the heck is a woo?

This sites mortal enemy. :D

Hutch
24th August 2006, 06:41 PM
Am I right that ETA is "edited to add"?

Yep, or Estimated Time of Arrival if your on a trip..;)

But what the heck is a woo?

A woo is a shorthand for somebody that takes postitions that are not only outside the mainstream, they are not even within shouting distance of the water. Rather than call them a variety of names, someone wiser than I decided the name Woos, or woowoos would best describe the wonderful wacky world of charlatans, fakes, healers, and Conspiracy Theorists.

Here is a good set of definitions...http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

ETA: Now, of course, we all know who the Woowooowooowooowooowooo is: http://www.thenyuknyukshoppe.com/ch.gif


BTW, welcome to the Forum.

LashL
24th August 2006, 06:47 PM
Okay, I think I've figured out most of the acronyms around here (some people think I Perfected "btw" back in the old CompuServe days).

Am I right that ETA is "edited to add"?

But what the heck is a woo?

Hi, Jennie :)

You are right that "eta" is "edited to add".

Woos are people like conspiracy theorists, tinhatters of all stripes, people who do either do not have or do not engage their critical thinking skills, people who believe in pseudoscience over facts and evidence, people who believe in false psychics and mystics and such, people who believe in any half baked theory that comes along without any scientific or factual basis for such belief, fake moon landing people, crop circle people, fake healers, etc. well, you get the idea.

ETA: oops, I see you've already been answered.

negativ
24th August 2006, 06:48 PM
But what the heck is a woo?

http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html ;)

My grandmother's brother used this term, and he was a WWII vet. So it's been around a while. I'd be interested to see an etymological history. :)

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 06:53 PM
LashL:
Thanks, I'll go read it...

Everyone:

Charles N. Pegelow - 713-869-7928 - Houston, TX

This is the only info I can find on the guy Fetzer is claiming is a structural engineer on his radio show. Several CTers have thrown this in my face.

I got the info off a house damage/marketing site or some such. No engineering speak on there...

No othe Charles N. Pegelow on a google search...

Anyone got any confirmed info on this guy?

Brainache
24th August 2006, 06:53 PM
The Asia branch of CTers opened a restaurant! I can't believe anyone would even make the sign!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5275866.stm

The article doesn't say what they changed the name to.
I'm guessing Nazi Noodles.
Or maybe Stalin's Steakhouse.
Mussolini Munchies?
K'mer Rouge Kurries?


Sorry couldn't help myself.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 07:02 PM
Interesting article.

Seems they did include the jet fuel and subsequent fire in their analysis.

A few things:

Doesn't mention impact speed of jet they accounted for.
Doesn't mention if, when analysing (1) Steel integrity changes due to heat were included, and if they were (2) if the added heat from burning products within the building would have been included.

the problem, we do not know if the analysis calculated only for the buildings to remain intact IMMEDIATELY AFTER the impact, or if it went beyond to calculate if the building would continue to remain standing, and for how long...

In fact, both buildings did withstand the initial impacts, didnt they...

gumboot
24th August 2006, 07:09 PM
In fact, both buildings did withstand the initial impacts, didnt they...

What buildings? ;)

-Andrew

Brainster
24th August 2006, 07:09 PM
I've remarked in the past how amazingly brilliant 9-11 Deniers can be at debunking parts of the conspiracy theory they disagree with. Well, in the battle between the no-planers and Jones, expect to see some very good evidence placed out there for the grabbing.

For example, Reprehensor at 9-11 Blogger has a post (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2256) on the controversy. Since he's not a no-planer, he whips out some mighty interesting evidence, including a photo of an aircraft part found atop the Federal Building near the WTC with a (dundunDUH!) serial number!

I feel like Flounder, in the middle of the homecoming parade chaos, saying "This is great!":D

ETA: Check out the comments on that post. My favorite comes from Qwerty, about 8 comments in:

If some of the vids were faked, wouldn't that help prove the lie regardless of planes or no planes? Wouldn't that prove media complicity by showing us that they fed us cartoons?

Or do you not want to go down that route for fear of where it leads? If you can show all the vids are consistant and A OK, you'll shut them up right?

This is the same fallacy as the fruitcakes who think that if they can prove one of the hijackers had a double, that would establish that the government did it, because Al Qaeda would have no need for doubles for any of the men.

BTW, if you haven't seen Spooked using Microsoft Flight Simulator (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-modeling-improved-angles.html) to prove that the planes couldn't be where they were in the videos, you haven't lived.

apathoid
24th August 2006, 07:14 PM
LashL:
Thanks, I'll go read it...

Everyone:

Charles N. Pegelow - 713-869-7928 - Houston, TX

This is the only info I can find on the guy Fetzer is claiming is a structural engineer on his radio show. Several CTers have thrown this in my face.

I got the info off a house damage/marketing site or some such. No engineering speak on there...

No othe Charles N. Pegelow on a google search...

Anyone got any confirmed info on this guy?

Probably no more a structural engineer than you or I (or Doyle Winterton).
But, I actually hope he is a SE. The CTers could no longer play the "but, they KNOW it was a CD, but they are afraid to speak out" card when it comes to no SE's coming forward. When nothing happens to this guy, we can start asking why others arent coming forward if there are no repercussions....

tsig
24th August 2006, 07:18 PM
So I was supposed to be paying my henchman all this time? In money?

I always gave them the leftover socks.

You gave away the sock agenda. retritbeutin


pshyco ninjq

Arkan_Wolfshade
24th August 2006, 07:22 PM
LashL:
Thanks, I'll go read it...

Everyone:

Charles N. Pegelow - 713-869-7928 - Houston, TX

This is the only info I can find on the guy Fetzer is claiming is a structural engineer on his radio show. Several CTers have thrown this in my face.

I got the info off a house damage/marketing site or some such. No engineering speak on there...

No othe Charles N. Pegelow on a google search...

Anyone got any confirmed info on this guy?

I can confirm name, number, and address. I will not be posting it, or the method I used, but holy crap; the method I used even told me who his landline provider is. :boggle:

There's also a Charles Pegelow in FL who is an MD.

Gravy
24th August 2006, 07:32 PM
Oh, there'd be so much heat and light, and radiation and death. People would've been blinded, blistered, the dust wouldn't have fallen down, the resulting heat would've caused a fireball to rise up, drawing up the air and dust beneath it in a massive convection current, forming the mushroom cloud, and the wind from this would've drawn smoke back towards the tower. People's lungs would've most likely collapsed, they'd be fighting for air, the shockwave would've broken most of the windows in downtown Manhattan.

That's why people don't use nuclear weapons.
...Or eat the "Mexican Pizza" at Happy Fresh Tortilla on 7th Avenue.

defaultdotxbe
24th August 2006, 07:34 PM
I can confirm name, number, and address. I will not be posting it, or the method I used, but holy crap; the method I used even told me who his landline provider is. :boggle:

There's also a Charles Pegelow in FL who is an MD.

yeah, its crazy what you can get out of the internet these days

one of my college profs asked to find out what i could about her, in 5 minutes i had her unlisted cell phone number

Arkan_Wolfshade
24th August 2006, 07:35 PM
yeah, its crazy what you can get out of the internet these days

one of my college profs asked to find out what i could about her, in 5 minutes i had her unlisted cell phone number

Thankfully, my RL name coincides with that of a minor-league pro-wrestler's real name, so I get lost in the noise.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 07:42 PM
My suspicion is he is a retired Structural engineer of little fame, or position, given there is nar but a trace of him on the internet. You would think if he is currently working in the field, an email addie or something would come up on him besides the one little thing I found.

Still, Fetzer interviewed him tonight on his show...

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

He is on the second hour

For your listening pleasure.

Gravy
24th August 2006, 07:43 PM
The Asia branch of CTers opened a restaurant! I can't believe anyone would even make the sign!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5275866.stm
That has got to go into the "good idea/bad idea" Hall of Fame.

WildCat
24th August 2006, 07:47 PM
I'm no genius, and I'm certainly a babe in the woods when it comes to physics, but living in Tornado Alley (http://wwwa.accuweather.com/adcbin/public/community_blog.asp?webcaster=COMMUNITY&date=2006-06-23_1829) all my life, and having a father who was an avid outdoorsman and firearms enthusiast taught me that velocity counts for a lot in how two objects behave when one strikes another.
And congrats on your banning today! Surprised you lasted so long. :cool:

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 07:47 PM
Fetzer describes his qualifications:

B Sc. in Civil Engineering from Lamar, B Sc Mathematics
Registered Egineer in state of Calfornia

works for Fulton Construction, most of his work is concerning oil rigs.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 07:55 PM
So now I am really puzzled, because this engineer guy, what he is saying, doesn't seem to be helping the CT case...

He starts off saying when he saw the collapse, it didnt look like a conventional demolition.

He then goes on to say that it "...normally if your collapsing a building or a controlled demolition, you get big chunks of concrete, and apparently there wasnt any concrete..."

LashL
24th August 2006, 07:57 PM
I can confirm name, number, and address. I will not be posting it, or the method I used, but holy crap; the method I used even told me who his landline provider is. :boggle:

There's also a Charles Pegelow in FL who is an MD.

Yes, I found all of that, too, plus his average income and the approximate value of his house.

But I'm wondering - how sure are we that this is the right guy? Because based on his letter to some home inspection type company, etc., there is no way he can be a structural engineer.

Is it possible that he goes by a middle name, perhaps? Just wondering, because this particular guy just doesn't fit the bill for a structural engineer.

That aside, I did also find that (if it's him) it appears that he is a member of this anti-war network of students, apparently out of California, but he's listed as a member from Houston, TX, and "retired".

"Campus Antiwar Network is the largest and leading independent, democratic, grassroots network of students opposing the occupation of Iraq and military recruiters in our schools at campuses all over the country."

http://www.campusantiwar.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=2

His listing there says only:
130
Pegelow, Charles
----
Retired
Houston
TX
United States of America


Which would kind of make sense if he was a retired prof, I guess.

Still - it just doesn't sit right somehow...

LashL
24th August 2006, 07:58 PM
Fetzer describes his qualifications:

B Sc. in Civil Engineering from Lamar, B Sc Mathematics
Registered Egineer in state of Calfornia

works for Fulton Construction, most of his work is concerning oil rigs.



Ahhh, okay, I hadn't seen that when I posted my last post above. Will try some different angles of attack :)

LashL
24th August 2006, 08:02 PM
Interesting article.

Seems they did include the jet fuel and subsequent fire in their analysis.

A few things:

Doesn't mention impact speed of jet they accounted for.
Doesn't mention if, when analysing (1) Steel integrity changes due to heat were included, and if they were (2) if the added heat from burning products within the building would have been included.

the problem, we do not know if the analysis calculated only for the buildings to remain intact IMMEDIATELY AFTER the impact, or if it went beyond to calculate if the building would continue to remain standing, and for how long...



Yes, and since Skilling made a point of saying that they did not think about terrorism at the time of construction, it's more likely that what they were designing for was a "lost in the fog" slow moving plane, etc.

And, besides that, it's a bit disingenuous to rely upon a single newspaper report citing Skilling, who is dead and cannot elaborate (and we all know that newspaper reports are not the most reliable of sources), while Robertson is alive and well, and he has specifically said that they were not designing for high speed plane impact, etc. - and he is available for them to ask all the questions in the world - not to mention that I'm pretty sure he is on video discussing these very issues, as are others who were involved in the design and construction.

T.A.M.
24th August 2006, 08:08 PM
I would like someone with more background than me to listen to this guy. He seems to be making some major points, that I can't refute, but I do not have the background some of you have...

Mainly he says that impact damage plus the fires, could not have started the collapse. Says the fires didnt reach higher than 800 or 900 farenheit, as the glass would have blown out of the windows. Says the steel, even in the inner columns, didnt reach temps above 550F.

Some of you guys may wanna give it a close listen, cause the way fetzer is treating him, I think they are gonna use alot of what he has to say as new ammo...

Arkan_Wolfshade
24th August 2006, 08:11 PM
Thanks for the lead T.A.M

BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS

Licensee Name: PEGELOW CHARLES NELSON
License Type: CIVIL ENGINEER
License Number: 26344
License Status: CLEAR Definition
Expiration Date: March 31, 2008
Address: 6726 LINDYANN LN
City: HOUSTON
State: TX
Zip: 77008
County: OUT OF STATE
Actions: No

Disciplinary Actions

No records returned

Disclaimer
All information provided by the Department of Consumer Affairs on this web page, and on its other web pages and internet sites, is made available to provide immediate access for the convenience of interested persons. While the Department believes the information to be reliable, human or mechanical error remains a possibility, as does delay in the posting or updating of information. Therefore, the Department makes no guarantee as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, currency, or correct sequencing of the information. Neither the Department, nor any of the sources of the information, shall be responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the use or results obtained from the use of this information. Other specific cautionary notices may be included on other web pages maintained by the Department. All access to and use of this web page and any other web page or internet site of the Department is governed by the Disclaimers and Conditions for Access and Use as set forth at California Department of Consumer Affairs' Disclaimer Information and Use Information.
http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=26344&P_LTE_ID=741

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 08:16 PM
That aside, I did also find that (if it's him) it appears that he is a member of this anti-war network of students, apparently out of California, but he's listed as a member from Houston, TX, and "retired".

I think working on oilrigs,and working in Cali fits the bill of the guy on fetzers
radio sheww! Sounds like Houston to me!

mrfreeze
24th August 2006, 08:19 PM
Great, now these people have a messiah complex.
http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11387
Many of us here know there are the hidden elite who are performing the evil in the world to acheive the Great Plan of the Illuminati.

How about the other side of the coin?

Does anyone think that there are some hidden good guys out there subverting the Great Plan? If there are, no doubt they aren't going to come out and say it, of course; but I'm curious what you all think about it.

Maybe we're that force?
2nd coming of Christ (if that's your cup of tea)?
karma?

And what the hell is the killuminati? Somehow I doubt that Dr. Dre is going to save us from the evil joo alliance.

JamesB
24th August 2006, 10:57 PM
I would like someone with more background than me to listen to this guy. He seems to be making some major points, that I can't refute, but I do not have the background some of you have...

Mainly he says that impact damage plus the fires, could not have started the collapse. Says the fires didnt reach higher than 800 or 900 farenheit, as the glass would have blown out of the windows. Says the steel, even in the inner columns, didnt reach temps above 550F.

Some of you guys may wanna give it a close listen, cause the way fetzer is treating him, I think they are gonna use alot of what he has to say as new ammo...

Did you catch the part where he said a hot fire would warp the panels on the outside. Huh? Did he read the NIST report? They did! They were all warped out of shape.

Kent1
24th August 2006, 11:25 PM
A while back I have spoken with Steven Chastain. http://stephenchastain.com/index.html
He is the book author from where Judy got her photos at the bottom here
http://scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlAluminumGlows_1Mar06.html

That's not aluminum.You can find correct photos elsewhere online or you can read his website. Now Steven has made at his website regarding the molten metal flowing from the towers.


He comments shoot down the scholars both Judy and Jones
http://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm
See threads starting with: Trade Center - Molten Flows & Structural Failure
First commenting on the wrong photo:
End to Aluminum Rumors:
Periodically, someone contacts me requesting material for their project or web site, which I am happy to supply. However, there is no guarantee that it will be accurately posted. Such appears to be the case in an aluminum article on the web. The owner of the site contacted me and I supplied a few articles and several photos. Although the majority of the material is accurately posted, two cupola photos appear in a group of aluminum melting photos. The cupola photos should appear in the iron melting section. Such a mistake is understandable when the material is being posted by a webmaster who does not have any particular knoweledge or interest in the material. Getting corrections can be a daunting task, even when the errors are apparent to the web site owner.
I can not guarantee the accuracy of any third party posting of my material. In the future, if there is any question regarding the posting or interpretation of my material, please contact me for clarification.

I will be happy to answer any questions regarding the interpretation of the posted photos.

Sorry to hear that there was such confusion due to the misplaced photos. My material is spread around in 45+ countries and there are probably other postings that may be subject to clarification.

When in doubt, ask me.

Stephen D. Chastain




Now on molten metal coming from the towers:

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperture of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calulations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissitivty of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relaltive to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered conderable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you dont believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similay and likey to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tensionis so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likey.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

ihaunter
24th August 2006, 11:51 PM
In case anyone should doubt gumboots powers
My 1fps is based on a car which came through the barrier arm - it only moved position once every second (roughly).


A Pentagon spokesperson tells Popular Mechanics that the video was taken with a Philips LTC 1261 security camera and recorded at one frame per second.
Debunking 9/11 Myths page 60

brumsen
24th August 2006, 11:57 PM
:jaw-dropp Holy cow! They basically discredit his craziest theory (thermite) because it isn't crazy enough for them!
It looks like I got off that particular train in time...

On the other hand - a more charitable reading of the Wood & Reynolds thing is that basically their ideas are so weird they couldn't stay within the "Scholars". And their piece says more about how pathetic they are, than about the remaining "Scholars".
(You might also want to check out this brilliant piece (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=refuting_demolition_debunkers)by Reynolds and Rajter on me...:D )

But I suspect they will argue themselves into irrelevance. As was said, it will be interesting to see what Fetzer will do. I tell you he's capable of staying with the Jones faction and just go on spouting his no-plane stuff and the like.

Do we take bets here?:D

Brainster
25th August 2006, 01:02 AM
It looks like I got off that particular train in time...

On the other hand - a more charitable reading of the Wood & Reynolds thing is that basically their ideas are so weird they couldn't stay within the "Scholars". And their piece says more about how pathetic they are, than about the remaining "Scholars".
(You might also want to check out this brilliant piece (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=refuting_demolition_debunkers)by Reynolds and Rajter on me...:D )

Yes they are nuts. Rajter is getting a lot of credibility as if that Holocaust Denial post never existed.

But I suspect they will argue themselves into irrelevance. As was said, it will be interesting to see what Fetzer will do. I tell you he's capable of staying with the Jones faction and just go on spouting his no-plane stuff and the like.

Do we take bets here?:D

Fetzer's absolutely sticking with Jones. I mean, look at the folks who spoke on C-Span. The only no-planer was Jimmy Walter, and we all know why he was given his ten seconds.

This was planned in LA if not on the phone earlier. Jones really started it with his attacks on the no-planers a couple-three days ago. We all saw Killtown get his Banned From Loose Change badge when--quite by coincidence I'm sure--Dylan and company were out of town. KT clearly knew it was coming as well.

My prediction: Despite significant defection from the "Scholars", Fetzer manages to remain a coalition leader because he keeps everybody happy enough. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery/Looser Than Words denounce Killtown and his ilk. The "movement" becomes ever more insular.

Grundar
25th August 2006, 01:10 AM
About the chemtrail tread

Awww, I do not have "permission to view this topic."

Tread moved from the LC lounge to somewhere. I couldn't see it either.
/Hans

T.A.M.
25th August 2006, 04:12 AM
So anyone have any comments wrt what this Pegelow character had to say. He claims that the Pancaking couldn't have occured, and that the temps of the fires, which he says were minimal, couldnt have even weakened the steel, and hence the collapse couldnt have begun through damage via planes and fires alone. he says there had to have been a 3rd factor, which he and fetzer, of course, alude to as bombs or explosives placed in the WTC.

Arkan_Wolfshade
25th August 2006, 04:38 AM
I haven't listened to it yet, but unless he presents anything more than his opinion on the matter then it is moot.

WildCat
25th August 2006, 05:26 AM
So anyone have any comments wrt what this Pegelow character had to say.
I'd be interested in how he came to his conclusions about the fire temps, etc. because it directly contradicts the NIST reports. Did he conduct his own study? What was his methodology? Where is it published? Where and how did he get his data?

Gravy
25th August 2006, 05:48 AM
A while back I have spoken with Steven Chastain. http://stephenchastain.com/index.html
He comments shoot down the scholars both Judy and Jones
Well, gosh if we don't learn something new every day at the ol' JREF forum! Great post, Kent1. I've always argued that the material flowing from the south tower was most probably aluminum with other materials entrained, in part because I've held blobs of formerly molten aluminum from the WTC that had clearly cooled in flight. But I never looked into it further, and I never considered aluminum oxide, or, until a couple of weeks ago, glass.

I just want to thank Kent1 for his posts here. He takes on complex subjects that most people shy away from, and he probably has the highest "interesting new content per quote" ratio of anyone here.

Gravy
25th August 2006, 05:51 AM
In case anyone should doubt gumboots powers


Debunking 9/11 Myths page 60
Well done, gumboot and ihaunter. That's a slower frame rate than I expected.

Mancman
25th August 2006, 05:51 AM
I would like someone with more background than me to listen to this guy. He seems to be making some major points, that I can't refute, but I do not have the background some of you have...

Mainly he says that impact damage plus the fires, could not have started the collapse. Says the fires didnt reach higher than 800 or 900 farenheit, as the glass would have blown out of the windows. Says the steel, even in the inner columns, didnt reach temps above 550F.

Some of you guys may wanna give it a close listen, cause the way fetzer is treating him, I think they are gonna use alot of what he has to say as new ammo...

The windows thing is tricky, because the floors with the worst fires would have lost many windows in the initial impacts anyway. The NIST reports do have a section about window breakage, which rose over the course of the fires, though I can't remember if that was mainly due to fires or trapped victims breaking them.

http://www.zenaa.com/wtc/images/s200109111049.jpg

chipmunk stew
25th August 2006, 06:08 AM
I just want to thank Kent1 for his posts here. He takes on complex subjects that most people shy away from, and he probably has the highest "interesting new content per quote" ratio of anyone here.
Absolutely. If you search on his posting history, it's basically a long list of substantive, original material.

gumboot
25th August 2006, 06:22 AM
In case anyone should doubt gumboots powers


Debunking 9/11 Myths page 60


:D

ph34r my p0w3r!!!!111!!1111ONE11!!!

-Andrew

gumboot
25th August 2006, 06:24 AM
A while back I have spoken with Steven Chastain.


Excellent post Kent1 and thank you for the very interesting information. I had never even thought of glass.

-Andrew

Belz...
25th August 2006, 07:14 AM
ph34r my p0w3r!!!!111!!1111ONE11!!!

I think your modem is about to disconnect!

Kent1
25th August 2006, 09:03 AM
Well, gosh if we don't learn something new every day at the ol' JREF forum! Great post, Kent1. I've always argued that the material flowing from the south tower was most probably aluminum with other materials entrained, in part because I've held blobs of formerly molten aluminum from the WTC that had clearly cooled in flight. But I never looked into it further, and I never considered aluminum oxide, or, until a couple of weeks ago, glass.

I just want to thank Kent1 for his posts here. He takes on complex subjects that most people shy away from, and he probably has the highest "interesting new content per quote" ratio of anyone here.

Thanks,... now if I can only learn how to fix typos faster in my posts.:D

Darth Rotor
25th August 2006, 09:09 AM
Thanks,... now if I can only learn how to fix typos faster in my posts.:D
Someone needs to FOIA the radar tapes from the LaGuardia and Newark Towers, likewise White Plains and Tito burrough. The Newark, La Guardia, and Kennedy TCA has considerable radar coverage. Primary returns. Come to think of it, there is a lot of FAA stuff that is apparently STILL not released. There are a lot of stories lurking about regarding numerous controllers, their radio tapes, their radar tapes, and confiscation by their supervisors.

Why does this matter? It ties into charges of a cover up.

I just got done reading from that jerk from Texas A & M and his abuse of Jones. His 'there was no plane' crap, particularly as regards Pentagon, makes me see red. Not happy with photo of a landing gear obviously sheared from a main mount is lying in the freaking street.

It occurs to me that the radar tapes from LaGuardia, White Plains, Newark, Tito Burrough, and a whole host of other local airports would show primary returns/blips of the first aircraft that hit WTC 1. The news would have caught the one that hit WTC 2, but so would the radar tapes.

I am sure the NTSB had to have seen them.

I want to know: why is this info being covered up? Or, is there a place where this data is available to the public?

The other issue is the subpoena of American Airlines information, and how they blocked efforts to track a particular flight that they apparently had a clue was missing or late.

I suspect a lot of this cover up stuff is "people covering their arses for fear of being the scapegoat." But it irks me that the story is only half told.

EDIT: his comparison of a C-130 (travelling at less than 200 knots) with a 757 travelling at 400+ knots and damage estimates/wreckage comparisons) ignores the formula for kinetic energy transfer:

KE = 1/2 M* V^2
And Momentum = M * V

It is so disgusting to see so called educated people ignore simple physics. I am not even a PhD and I get this. *rollseyes*

DR

Hellbound
25th August 2006, 09:09 AM
Thanks,... now if I can only learn how to fix typos faster in my posts.:D

Hey, we're more than willing to overlook typos, if the content is good :D

Now if your arguments are vaccuous AND you have typos, well, that's a different matter (Huntsman begins slowly sharpening his axe).

DavidJames
25th August 2006, 09:17 AM
Recall the school trip Dylan and friends touted...Here is "merc's" big find. Maybe someone here who speaks CT better than I can interpret as I can't figure out what he's trying to say.


So here's what happened.

We (Myslef, Dylan, and "Lyte Trip") went to confirm that Waleed Alshehri lived there.

The first neigbor was SPOOKY!

She said "we don't want to talk to you", then angrily fired questions off like "Why now? Who are you? What is this for? What's your name, give me a business card".

Very bad scene.

Then we actually interviewed a woman who was made contact by the Boston Globe because she didn't want to speak about it (bastards). She lived next door to Diane Albritton, the house I was knocking on next door to her where no one was answering. Diane was the most vocal person about Waleed's activities. In short, this woman positively identified Waleed Alshehri, the pic still being used today by the FBI.

This causes a major problem for the official story! This is proof that they are protecting a Saudi double agent, who was most lilely used for a wargame drill which went hot last minute.

They are omitting his Vienna history from the official story. We now have proof he lived there and WAS the son of a saudi diplomat and apparently was alive after 9/11. We can only guess on the alive part, because we have NEVER seen a pic of the ALIVE Waleed the pilot-which indicates regardless that we are talking about the same two people.

Another part of the puzzle solved, a new puzzle begins.

from here: /http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11352