Loose Change

[Regnad Kcin]

The USA Today article is a lead piece on today's AOL welcome screen.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Geggy, I asked, but you did not reply: What do you do for a living?

 

[senorpogo]

The USA Today article is a lead piece on today's AOL welcome screen.

"Penelope Price, a documentary filmmaker and professor at Scottsdale Community College, said she brought the filmmakers to the campus to stimulate critical thinking."

 

[pgwenthold]

"Penelope Price, a documentary filmmaker and professor at Scottsdale Community College, said she brought the filmmakers to the campus to stimulate critical thinking."

Wow, a invite to Scottsdale Community College! They've hit the big time, now.

What's next? Open-mic night at Joe's Crab Shack?

So professors at a community college are trying to drum up some press for their school, whereas scholarly institutions are laughing them off.

Shoot, even the BYU physics department is trying to separate themselves from one of their own just because he is heavily cited by the CTers.

 

[Pardalis]

Informationclearinghouse.info has good and well balanced articles relating sept 11.

Yeah, right...

informationclearinghouse.info/article12195.htm

"In this essay, I will try picking up the bowl rather than just the Jell-O - the deep story that frames much of our history - to see if I can grasp the overall story that includes 9-11, our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran, the theft of trillions of dollars from the tax base to transfer to the top tenth of a percent or so of our population, the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms."

I added theses (" ") by the way

 

[Pardalis]

During the time of the attack, citizens were bolted down with fear and distress causing the frontal lobes of their brain to shut down which means they were not thinking clearly at all.

Maybe it's because I'm a francophone, but can you explain to me what the hell this is supposed to mean?

By citizens, would it include people who thought heard explosions in the WTC, and others who think they saw a missile hit the pentagon?

 

[Pardalis]

Pelrhsaios,

Now this is getting infantile... You're really showing us a lot of maturity.

I can't really say. Some say planes may have been remote controlled and that's not so farfetched. Before the pentagon was crashed, the plane made a sharp 270 degree bank turn and crashed the west wing where the part was being renovated. It's almost impossible for an amateur pilot to make a 270 degree turn but it's possible with remote control. The reason why we don't see very many plane debris may be because the debris were delved into the ground. I mean the plane was going 500 mph when it crashed, you know.

So according to you, Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11? What about your circumstantial evidence that the Bushs had ties with the Bin Laden family? What was that all about then?

 

[Pardalis]

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...oryID=1187499&section=news&src=rss/uk/topNews

Wow, these people are a special breed. If there were more of them in this world, maybe there wouldn't be so much violence and wars. If there is any goodness in this world, here it is.

Bless their hearts.


This on the other hand...

http://mujca.com/

This is showing us what you really are... A f**ing lunatic!

Unfortunately, there are too much of your kind in this world.

 

[geggy]

The astonishing thing is that he posted that when replying to a post that asked whether the Bush administration has a stranglehold on the public media all over the world, as required by Geggy's assertion that "the official theory is accepted by many citizens because the bush administration has a stranglehold of the media."

Umm...read the article here that was copied and pasted then click on the link below the article. These things have been happening quite often as I've noticed..

http://question911.livejournal.com/1981.html

Once I started to see the light that sept 11 was an inside job, everything became much clearer. It's now easier for me to recongize propaganda whenever I see it.

Aahahaha of course they would push the loose change article on top of the USA today website. That is wide opened propaganda. Either they're trying to demonize and discredit the sept 11 movement or they're giving out subtle hints that you should check out the film and do your own research.

Readers will react either in a way they will dismiss it as conspracy theory loony or they will wonder and check why people are questioning the official story...

Go to www.rawstory.com and click on the flight 93 link. The article asked some hard questions.

Connecting the dots here, in chronicle order...

-Mountain of forewarnings (fact)
-PNAC think tank created and claimed they needed a "catalyzing event like a new pearl harbor." as a pretext for invading the M.E. to meet with their agenda (fact)
-Rumsfeld changed NORAD policy that in case of an emergency, only Rummy can give orders to deploy fighter jets (fact)
-NSA spying prior to sept 11 (fact)
-even more forewarnings (fact)
-numerous wargame exercises were performed. WTC and pentagon were several practice targets (fact)
-Silverstein signed a $3.2 bil lease to WTC in the summer prior to sept 11 (fact)
-insider tradings prior to sept 11. AA and UA airliners stocks massively sold. (fact)
-New york city alert level heightened few days prior to sept 11 (fact)
-wargame exercises began as scheduled in morning of sept 11 (fact)
-north tower attacked
-bush arrived booker school (fact)
-south tower attacked
-bush told about 2nd attack, continued to read my pet goat (fact)
-pentagon attacked 45 minutes after the 2nd wtc attacked without any fighter jets deployed to protect DC (fact)
-south tower collapsed
-north tower collapsed
-fighter jets deployed to look after flight 93 with still no fighter jets deployed to protect DC (fact)
-Rummy laid out plans to attack Iraq in the same day (fact)
-flight 93 crashed?
-bin Laden named the culprit later in the same day with no evidence shown (fact)
-WTC7 collapsed
-bin Laden denies involvement in front of a video camera (fact)
-Bush claimed the attack came as a surprise (fact)
-bin Laden denies involvement for 2nd time in front of a video camera (fact)
-top government officials all over the world asked US for evidence pointing bin Laden as the culprit (fact)
-FBI were told to put halt on investigation on Oct 10, 2001 (fact)
-bin Laden's most wanted record in fbi.gov website updated in nov 2001, with nothing said about sept 11 (fact)
-US invaded afghanistan (fact)
-In the following dec, videotape of bin Laden discussing his successful terror operation released, but it was clearly not bin Laden, the videotape was the only supposedly evidence (fact)
-no one working for intelligence agency fired, some promoted and received medals (fact)
-several supposedly hijackers reportedly shown up alive and claimed their innocence (fact)
-Bush obstructed independant investigation for next 3 years, angering some families of victims (fact)
-9/11 commission report released in 2004
-After appealling twice, Silverstein finally granted insurance claims. Twin towers attack considered as two seperate incidents, in which he received nearly two times larger than what he originally asked for. (fact)
-Moussaoui, the only sept 11 suspect, trial finally begins 5 years later (fact)
-bin Laden still not captured (fact)
-NIST misses deadline twice as to their conclusion of why WTC7 collapsed (fact)

 

[Pardalis]

Once I started to see the light that sept 11 was an inside job, everything became much clearer.

So YOU'RE an Illuminati!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...When Avery said 9/11 is the new JFK, he meant that 70 percent of the public were convinced that oswald didn't act alone and the warren commission was a whitewash. Unfortunately the reopening of a new investigation never happened...

And at one point 100% (or as near to make the difference irrelevant) of the public believed the Earth is flat.

Do you have any idea what logical fallacies are?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm starting to suspect that people like geggy and the Loose Changers are Republican operatives, directed by Karl Rove. Their seeming anti-Bush bleatings, wacky-to-the-extreme as they are, will only help to secure sympathy for the right heading into the '06 elections, not to mention the run-up to the next presidential campaign.

See what we're up against in the War on Terror, Mr. Bush will proclaim, with a knowing nod from Mr. Rove. Our enemies even suggest we attacked ourselves! The purpose being to equate any legitimate criticism of this administration's policies (and by extension party's policies) with all criticism of the same.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, none of these "facts" (unreferenced) have anything to do with the supposed "controlled demolition" of the twin towers.

 

[Blackwell]

Aahahaha of course they would push the loose change article on top of the USA today website. That is wide opened propaganda. Either they're trying to demonize and discredit the sept 11 movement or they're giving out subtle hints that you should check out the film and do your own research.

So which is it, geggy? You can't have it both ways. Either the media is in on the conspiracy, or they're not.

 

[Ramooone]

I'm done with geggy, im just going to start complaining about CTers.


my favorite argument is when they say the buildings fall at free-fall speed, yet if you actually watch it, it's closer to 15 seconds. some of the CTers like to say well, thats pretty fast still, yet if they did the calculations themselves they'd realise that if the buildings were twice as high they would fall in 13 seconds freefall.

so the building actually fell slower than if it was twice its height in free-fall.

another thing that pisses me off about these loosers is the fact that they all say these are documentaries. they aren't. i'm a documentary filmmaker and i know the work that goes into shooting docs, all the interviews, the RESEARCH and work it takes in general. when you make a documentary out of everyone elses footage its like saying you wrote a book when in reality you actually just photocoppied a bunch of articles from the newspaper.

 

[Stellafane]

...Once I started to see the light that sept 11 was an inside job, everything became much clearer...

Or phrased another way, "Once I went nuts, I stopped letting reality stand in the way of what I wanted to believe."

 

[rwguinn]

I'd be more interested to hear you explain why it does look like a controlled demo. You've already shown that you know very little about demolitions.

It does look like a controlled Demo.
That is because the laws of physics and engineering work the same way every time.
A controlled demolition is designed to cripple the structure so that gravity can take over and do the work.
Crashing a Jumbo Jet int a building is designed to cripple the structure so that gravity can take over and do the work.
In a building, if the support structure is designed to handle a million ton load (wind, snow, and other structure above), you can collapse it 2 ways:
1: Increase the loading. Buildings have collapsed because of excessive snow or rain loading, high wind loading (yes, especially on a sloped roof), and stuff dropping on them (airplanes, trucks, etc)
2: weaken the structure so it is no longer capable of supporting 1 million tons. This is done by removing support colums (such as by chainsaw, cutting torch, trucks colliding with it, airplanes crashing into it, shaped charges), weakening support collums (partial cutting, heating them above design temperature, removing fasteners, dry rot, rust)

Combine 1 and 2, and you have a demolished building. Controlled demolition allows you to chose the time, and by selectively weakening/cutting supports, cause the debris to fall more or less in a particular direction

 

[R.Mackey]

So let me see if I've got this straight. Claimed is that:

(a) Some shadowy cabal decided to destroy the World Trade center, motive unimportant.
(b) 767's hit the World Trade Center at speed.
(c) This was insufficient to destroy the buildings.
(d) A subsequent demolition charge finished them off.

Even if we ignore the fact that (d) is provably false, in fact quite insane, Mr. Geggy's claims are still unreasonable. How can this mysterious force be so clever to organize and execute this scheme "almost" undetected, yet simultaneously so stupid as to not, say, use larger 747's instead?

Any conspiracy with the means to execute this plan, would not execute this plan. No matter what the motive nor constraints, there were a wealth of better options to achieve the same results. This takes no particular genius to appreciate.

Mr. Geggy, if you are terrified of these people, I can only imagine the horror you would feel towards a conspiracy with similar resources plus some actual intelligence behind it.

 

[geggy]

Crashing a Jumbo Jet int a building is designed to cripple the structure so that gravity can take over and do the work.
In a building, if the support structure is designed to handle a million ton load (wind, snow, and other structure above), you can collapse it 2 ways:
1: Increase the loading. Buildings have collapsed because of excessive snow or rain loading, high wind loading (yes, especially on a sloped roof), and stuff dropping on them (airplanes, trucks, etc)
2: weaken the structure so it is no longer capable of supporting 1 million tons. This is done by removing support colums (such as by chainsaw, cutting torch, trucks colliding with it, airplanes crashing into it, shaped charges), weakening support collums (partial cutting, heating them above design temperature, removing fasteners, dry rot, rust)

Combine 1 and 2, and you have a demolished building. Controlled demolition allows you to chose the time, and by selectively weakening/cutting supports, cause the debris to fall more or less in a particular direction

You're right about the plane that sliced through the top portion and weakened the area of the impact. But do you think it might be possible that explosives could be preplanted underneath the impact to weaken/cut supports as it explodes to allow the building collapse to it's footprint?

By the way do you consider the former head of Star Wars Program under presidents jimmy carter and gerald ford a conspiracy theorist?

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm

 

[rwguinn]

One of the things the Loosers keep harping on is the "Central Core" of the WTC not being all that damaged.
If you go back to the first attempt, the bomb in the basement job in the 1990's, we actually told the terrorists how to bring the building down. I am going to paraphrase, here, because I don't have the exact link and verbage, but
The towers do not have a "central core" to speak of. The load is primarily carried at the perimeter. The Empire State building survived the airplane crash because it is built about a load-carrying central core.
By trying to blow the central core of the the WTC, the terrorists exposed their ignorance of modern building.

so we told 'em how, back in the early 90's. I'll try to find the link