Need help debunking 9/11 Woo Woos

[Jon_in_london]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12457137943386

I know that this is probably old stuff for most people here, but can anyone provide a link to anywhere that debunks this?

[defaultdotxbe]

i cant post URLs

google "loose change veiwers guide" and/or "screw loose change"

[geni]

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

[Hutch]

Geni's got the Prime Site for it, but for more detailed data, try www.911myths.com and their links area http://www.911myths.com/html/911__debunking_links.html and What's New seciotn should get you more information than you could ever need.

Or come visit for a minute in the monster Loose Change thread, we have several of the proprieties of the sites in there and one Markyx, has done a couple of videos on the LC'ers.

Good luck, if you get caught up in any discussions, let us know.

[Dragon]

Hi Jon - bloody hell, where have you been man?

Check out the Loose Change Parts I, II and III threads here if you've got the time.

Otherwise go to http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ where there are loads of debunking links.
In particular this one as already posted by Geni - http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html - which is the work of our very own Gravy.

[Dragon]

Jon - where are you debating this? Online or irl?

[HidariMak]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Hi Jon - bloody hell, where have you been man?

Check out the Loose Change Parts I, II and III threads here if you've got the time.

Otherwise go to http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ where there are loads of debunking links.
In particular this one as already posted by Geni - http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html - which is the work of our very own Gravy.

It might also be a good idea to point your friends towards another piece by Gravy, with info on the people behind Loose Change. The Creators of Loose Change Speak gives some insight into their possible train of thought, using segments from public interviews which they've had.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Jon - where are you debating this? Online or irl?

Online - I know that I could combat these claims by reasoning and sense but its too much like hard work. I'd far rather plagiarise someone else's debunkments.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Online - I know that I could combat these claims by reasoning and sense but its too much like hard work. I'd far rather plagiarise someone else's debunkments.

Or you could call upon the mysterious powers of the JREF Ninja Wave (patent pending)

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Online - I know that I could combat these claims by reasoning and sense but its too much like hard work. I'd far rather plagiarise someone else's debunkments.

Tell us where then, you know you want to ...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Tell us where then, you know you want to ...

Sorry old chap. Top secret. Need to know basis and all that. Mums the word....

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Sorry old chap. Top secret. Need to know basis and all that. Mums the word....

Ah, it's on that socialist worker party board you're admin for, isn't it?

[Jon_in_london]

Whats the best argument against the old "theres no cctv showing a 757 hitting the pentagon" chestnut?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Whats the best argument against the old "theres no cctv showing a 757 hitting the pentagon" chestnut?

The best argument is that there is footage of a plane hitting the pentagon, more frames of which where released at the end of last year, it's all over Google video and YouTube. The trouble is CTers wont see a plane even when it's right in front of them.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by brodski

The best argument is that there is footage of a plane hitting the pentagon, more frames of which where released at the end of last year, it's all over Google video and YouTube. The trouble is CTers wont see a plane even when it's right in front of them.

The only problem with this footage is that you cant clearly see a plane - and what you can see looks far to small to be a plane. This feeds to claim that the pentagon was hit by a missile or fighter jet or sumink

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

The only problem with this footage is that you cant clearly see a plane - and what you can see looks far to small to be a plane. This feeds to claim that the pentagon was hit by a missile or fighter jet or sumink

I can't dig it out right now, but there is a fantastic animation, which mixes CGI with the frames from this video camera which sows the flight path of the plane into the pentagon, and shows how the video stills show exactly what you would expect to see. I'll dig around for it tonight; I think I saw it on the screwloosechange blog.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by brodski

I can't dig it out right now, but there is a fantastic animation, which mixes CGI with the frames from this video camera which sows the flight path of the plane into the pentagon, and shows how the video stills show exactly what you would expect to see. I'll dig around for it tonight; I think I saw it on the screwloosechange blog.

Thanks Brodders!

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Thanks Brodders!

I think this is it here http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
I can't watch video on this PC so I'm not sure if it’s the one I was thinking of. There's lost of good flight 77 stuff here http://www.911myths.com/html/911_pentagon_links.html

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by brodski

I think this is it here http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
I can't watch video on this PC so I'm not sure if it’s the one I was thinking of. There's lost of good flight 77 stuff here http://www.911myths.com/html/911_pentagon_links.html

That is the one, very good it is too.

[Jon_in_london]

Not to worry, found it.

Its very good.

[Jon_in_london]

Oh well. After some hardcore debunking by yours truly, the whole thing degenerated to nasty ad homs.

Cest la vie.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Whats the best argument against the old "theres no cctv showing a 757 hitting the pentagon" chestnut?

Another thing to bear in mind are the following:

CTers will usually quote the pentagon footage, the Sheraton hotel footage, and the highway traffic cameras as confiscated by the FBI. The fact this footage has not been released would be seen as a cover up.

A number of things to remember:

1) Evidence in a crime remains the property of whoever owns it, thus investigators cannot release this private property without permission - this goes for surveillance footage

2) Surveillance cameras tend to be low resolution recording a dozen frames a second or less. This is done to save storage space for video.

A 10 minute segment of handycam quality footage in .avi format takes up about 2 GB of data storage space. You cannot afford to have vast volumes of hard drive space to record what is 99% nothing happening.

Most events that happen do not happen so fast that one needs to capture it at high speed. As such, a high speed event - such as an aircraft hitting a building at 500 MPH, is only going to be captured in a few frames, and will be incredibly blurry.

You can try this for yourself. Record some video on a typical handycam of someone running past the camera. Play it back. Looks okay right? now freeze frame it while they're in frame. The person will be very blurry. Now halve the frame rate (more blurry), halve the resolution (more blurry), and increase the person's speed from 15 MPH to 500 MPH. You'll be lucky if you catch them at all.

3) Consider what the purpose of cameras are. The Sheraton Hotel ones, for example. The Sheraton Hotel don't install cameras to guard the Pentagon. They install cameras to guard their own building. Their cameras, thus, will be looking in, at their own property, not out at someone else's. The FBI may have confiscated tape, and maybe a camera even caught something, but it's not going to be ideal. Remember it's standard practise to sieze footage, just in case.

4) The last point is the most important. Cameras does not mean recorded video. The Pentagon was covered primarily by live camera feeds. They have guys who sit all day watching those cameras. They don't record them all.

The same goes for the traffic cameras. Traffic feeds are live, usually upliked straight to the internet. They're designed to let people know what is happening with traffic. No one needs to know what was happening an hour ago, or yesterday, or last week. So why record it? They don't.

So all we get is one piece of footage which actually captured the aircraft, and it's of such poor quality we can't tell what it is. Exactly as I'd expect.

-Andrew

[Beady]

I just had a bit of fun. Was finishing up a bit of overtime when two cow-orkers came in to begin their OT. One sits on the other side of my cube partition and believes in remote viewing, 9/11 conspiracies, acupuncture, homeopathy, etc, and has generally been driving me out of my tree (I can't kill him, 'cause I'd probably get fired). The other cow-orker is an ultra-conservative, former cop, and sits a few cubes away. We were the only three in that part of the building.

Long story short, I mentioned to the cop that the woo believes 9/11 was a government plot. I participated in the ensuing discussion for all of 30 seconds, then tiptoed out and went home. Blood was on the floor as I left.