Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
geggy said:
I aplogize for the error. Sometime the internet provider on my tmobile sidekick can get screwy. I think I'mn being spied on. Not being paranoid, I have nothing to hide. Theyre the ones who are being paranoid. heh
Click to expand...

Geggy, let me state this clearly.

IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS HALF AS BAD AS YOU SAY IT IS, YOU'D BE DEAD BY NOW.

Sorry for the shouting.
 
Belz...
Take a look...
wtc3.jpg

wtc4.jpg

wtc5.jpg

wtc6.jpg

wtc7.jpg

wtc8.jpg

wtc9.jpg

You can clearly see the squibs ejecting. The ejection of the second squib in the picture is far below the collapsing area of the tower. In an event of controlled demo, squibs eject out of buildings at the same time to allow the building to free fall. Squibs ejected out of the wtc tower and the top followed through. The tower couldn't have possibly came down without stripping and cutting of the core to weaken the structure of the building unless explosives were preplanted. I'd have my doubt if puff of smoke ejected of every floor as if the pancaking theory was true. But the problem is here in this picture...

wtc_small_1056.jpg


In the area of the puff of smoke ejection did not appear to be damaged. There were no signs of trusses giving away, otherwise the cracks of the concrete of the tower would be clearly visible. So what exactly do you think caused the ejecting of the puff of smoke?

The only logical explanation for this is that squibs were making a clean cut through the concrete of the towers.
 
Last edited:
geggy:

Those are not squibs, no matter how much you want them to be.

Those are most likely the result of air pressure, as the collapsing upper floors are pushing dust and air downward, increasing the pressure to the point that it blows out some windows.

Besides, the support is in the cneter of the building...why would you expect to see squibs outside? And why would they only be in the center of each side of the building?

Your argument is getting geggerious again.

Have any evidence?
 
Huntsman said:
Besides, the support is in the cneter of the building...why would you expect to see squibs outside? And why would they only be in the center of each side of the building?
Click to expand...
Relatedly, there were no vertical concrete structures in the World Trade Center. Only the floors themselves were concrete. Any explosive charge set to demolish them would be expected to expel its ejecta up or down (depending on whether it's set above or below the structure), not out.
 
The only logical explanation for this is that squibs were making a clean cut through the concrete of the towers.[/QUOTE]


All floors in the WTC were not equal. Some were machinery (ac, water pumps, compressors, etc.) some were office space. Some were full of stoff, and some were vacant.

That puff is the path of least resistance -

And what is an "explosion" anyway? The puff YOU see in your "squib" is just a push of matter away from a released compression of air - it doesn't matter if it goes 'boom' or pfffft - its still the compression of air.
 
Orb said:
I thought a squib was a pretend bomb used in the movies?
Click to expand...



Yup - and the LC'ers are full of pretend stuff if you listen to their soundtracks - The entire thing is so laughably bad. Making me want to take it and re-narrate it, or narrate over it. Since there is very little footage that belongs to these kids, its all purchased from the original sources, it would be a very doable thing.

Me? I'd rather go after the real bad guys than chase shadows. LC's may not be charging for the film, but there is a pile $$$$$ to be made in speaking fees, and expenses. Not a bad living.

If they really believed that the country was as lost as they say, there is nothing to stop them from leaving - the door swing both ways.

Ask Roman Polanski
 
kookbreaker said:
But the building was already falling, so what was the point of setting off a lonely charge a few floors below the collapse?
Click to expand...
Exactly, in every single controlled demolition the "squibs" go off before the building starts to collapse. But for WTC 1, 2, and 7 no squibs appear until after the buildings start to collapse. Because, of course, they're not squibs at all but the result of floors pancaking and expelling debris due to air pressure.
 
geggy said:
Belz...
Take a look...
Click to expand...
Oh, geggy,you couldn't have picked a better example of what is NOT an explosion. Again, you act as though you're dealing with people as stupid as you are.

Have you seen the video of that "squib?" No, you haven't, you just post stills from the internet, just like with the bin Laden "confession" tape. You absolutely refuse to do your homework, despite getting dragged behind the woodshed EVERY DAY FOR IT.

How many days in a row is that?

Will you go back and show us the last time you used an example to prove a point and it was correct? That's a serious question, geggy.

YOU'VE MADE 120+ POSTS. HAVE YOU BEEN RIGHT ONCE ABOUT A SINGLE POINT OF FACT?

SHOW US AN EXAMPLE.
 
I'm going to repeat myself, because I want geggy to get the point and I'm not sure he can read more than a few sentences without frying his neurons.

geggy, please show us ONE example that you've used as evidence to support your conspiracy theory that has been correct.

And if you've made over 120 posts and not gotten anything right, what does that tell you?
 
So I don't know a lot about controlled demolitions. I was wondering, could one of those who think the pictures above are indicative of a controlled demolition show me a picture of a known controlled demolition that looks the same?

I know you aren't building demolitions experts, so I would assume that you have pictures and video of controlled demolitions that you have compared to the WTC towers falling and seen comparable features. I mean, how else could you justify using these pictures to claim that "it looks like a controlled demolition" if you haven't documented similar effects in known controlled demolitions?
 
[COLOR=black said:
- Ø®£Z - at the Loose Change forum][/COLOR]If any administrators remove this thread, that is a sure sign that Loose Change, and this forum are nothing more than an intelligence disinformation operation.

There is no profanity, nudity or illegal material contained in this post; therefor, there is no credible reason for its removal, should an administrator "decide" to remove this thread.

The real Osama, not the altered, disinformation version from Loose Change 2E.
realosama2fb.jpg




A real picture of the damage at the Pentagon from Flight 77 -- the 757 that crashed there.
pentagontext4hz.jpg






(22:03) "Why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757"
screenshot73qa.jpg



It isn't. The damage is, in fact, completely consistent with a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon.

But the fact that the makers of LC2E chose to use a picture that has a lot of smoke, fire retardent foam and a firetruck spraying two solid streams of water across and into the building in the foreground, obscuring and hiding the impact zones in the background, it isn't any wonder why people would think that there isn't much damage.


I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. However, disinformation laden 9/11 videos like Loose Change -- first and second editions -- only serve to undermine the factual evidence of 9/11 having been an inside job.

Those above two pics that I wrote the text on, are only two quick examples of Loose Change 2E disinformation. There are easily 100 more examples, easily.

Since I'm a member of this forum now, I'll need to completely dismantle the lies, disinformation, misinformation, and already thoroughly debunked hoaxes that are contained in Loose Change 2E.

If the site administrators remove this thread, Loose Change, and thsi forum are part of a continuing intelligence disinformation operation.


I challenge you [the site] to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3526&view=findpost&p=4110708

It will be fun to see how they handle this.
 
In the thread about my "LC" critique, I saw that TheQuest, one of the dumbest of them all said he was willing to "concede" the Pentagon. Boy, Rumsfeld will be glad to have it back!
 
In regards to the relationship of the Chertoffs a person at this thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=682

writes:
His mother says so, according to Alex Jones.. lol

"Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, Yes, of course, he is a cousin.' "
Click to expand...

I e-mailed Benjamin Chertoff again to get a comment, his reply:

Thank you for not disclosing my e-mail address.

No, I'm not related to Michael Chertoff. In fact, the first time I'd ever heard of him was when he was nominated as head of homeland security -- at least a week after we'd gone to press with the story (magazines are "long
lead," meaning we close an issue months before its publish date).

My name isn't very common, so, last year, it was an honest answer to say Ididn't know whether I was related when asked -- and I said that to a "reporter" who'd called my direct line, without any introduction to let me know he was going to do anything with the conversation.

As for my mother, that quote is patently absurd. She was contact by someone who called himself "chris," and never identified himself as a reporter. And her answer -- at least what she swears she said -- was "he might be a cousin." Neither she nor I knew -- in the end, after trying to find any
relation to Mike Chertoff, I've come up empty handed. But, again, I can tell you this with certainty: I've never met him, nor have I had any contact with him. Ever. And the same goes for me extended family. I have about as much of a relationship with Michael Chertoff as Old McDonald has
with Ronald.

(And for the record, I can only assume you're brothers with Peter Falk.)

I'd recommend would be conspiracy theorists contact Michael Chertoff's office if they want to investigate a nonexistent relationship -- I imagine he has much more detailed files on this sort of stuff than I do.

And, either way, as you said -- the facts in the story are easily verifiable, AND I was only one of 9 reporters working on the story.

Facts are facts, no matter how much people dislike them.

B
Click to expand...

I'll try to get a hold of Michael Chertoff, but I think that might take awhile.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom