Loose Change

[senorpogo]

:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

You have to believe a "Dr. Jones" from an unnamed university in Texas!

Granted, if I were going to fabricate evidence, I'd cite someone named Jones or Smith rather than Perkowski or Manumaleuna. And I'd say they're from a university in a large geographic area - like Texas or California - rather than Rhode Island or Wichita. That way, if someone tries to disprove the evidence, they have to do extensive research. Even then, with a name like Jones and a 100+ universities in Texas, they very well may find a structural engineer named Jones.

edit: My mistake. I noticed now that it was an email to Jones. So we have a completely unnamed structural engineer from somewhere in Texas. That makes it even less believable.

 

[senorpogo]

:rolleyes

Read this...

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html

You all also need to look seriously into this timeline of the sept 11 commission...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...investigations:_a_detailed_look=911Commission

It's also worth noting that, while the unnamed structural engineers in the paper raise doubts about the official story of the collapse, nowhere do they explicitly say that they believe it was a contorlled demolition.

Looser's are known to edit quotes from experts in such a way as to make it appear that they too believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition. (The Bill Manning quotes from Fire Engineering come to mind.) In reality, these quoted experts will often have legitimate concerns over the specific findings of government investigations in regards to actual engineering and building safety. Why exactly did the towers fail? What does this tell us about the way we construct buildings? Was the fireproofing in the building adequate? How can we make our buildings in a safer way to avoid such in the future accidents? It's only natural that there would be some legitimate discussion about these things.

Without seeing the entirity of the emails by these supposed structural engineers, there's no way to know exactly what they question about the official investigation.

 

[CptColumbo]

Ha, after several days with no resonse to the posting of Ben Chertoff's email explaining he is not related to Micheal Chertoff, and what his mother really said ('he might be a cousin', not 'he is a cousin'), one of the Loosers has finally come up with a rebuttle:



Man, I was hoping the first come back would at least include some sort of paranoid ranting about payoffs and government coverups.

They, of course, won't look into it or double-check the data through another source.
I'm not sure if they're calling Chertoff a "shill" or CurtC. Of course, the person who first reported it is a pillar of integrity.

Edited for spelling.

 

[CptColumbo]

It's also worth noting that, while the unnamed structural engineer's in the paper raise doubts about the official story of the collapse, nowhere do they explicitly say that they believe it was a contorlled demolition.

Looser's are known to edit quotes from experts in such a way as to make it appear that they too believe that the WTC was a controlled demolition. (The Bill Manning quotes from Fire Engineering come to mind.) In reality, these quoted experts will often have legitimate concerns over the specific findings of government investigations in regards to actual engineering and building safety. Why exactly did the towers fail? What does this tell us about the way we construct buildings? Was the fireproofing in the building adequate? How can we make our buildings in a safer way to avoid such in the future accidents? It's only natural that there would be some legitimate discussion about these things.

Without seeing the entirity of the emails by these supposed structural engineers, there's no way to know exactly what they question about the official investigation.

The sad part is that the CT movement might actually be hurting any actual investigation. By fabricating evidence, like Mark Hoffman or Piltdown Man, they are setting any actual investigation years back, because the investigators have to weed out what was made up and what is real.

 

[geggy]

Kevin Lowe...
You must be really proud of yourself for getting banned from the LC boards. Probably one of your most defining moments of your lifetime on the net, eh? I think this will surprise you, esp coming from me...I think it's lame that you were banned from the board, as well, unless you were bombarding them with insults and wiseass cracks, then it's probably understandable why ya got banned. I sure as heck wouldn't ban you if you actually brought something to the table for everyone to discuss.

Soooo...say what subject surrounding sept 11 you were discussin that got you banned? Pls don't tell me it had something to do with the pentagon. I'm not a fan of that one, unless it had to do with the standdown of NORAD, then I can discuss. I'm tryin to pull the people into discussin on that issue but most have backed away.

I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...

Davidjames...sorry for the delay. I will come back later.

 

[WildCat]

Kevin Lowe...
You must be really proud of yourself for getting banned from the LC boards. Probably one of your most defining moments of your lifetime on the net, eh? I think this will surprise you, esp coming from me...I think it's lame that you were banned from the board, as well, unless you were bombarding them with insults and wiseass cracks, then it's probably understandable why ya got banned. I sure as heck wouldn't ban you if you actually brought something to the table for everyone to discuss.

Soooo...say what subject surrounding sept 11 you were discussin that got you banned? Pls don't tell me it had something to do with the pentagon. I'm not a fan of that one, unless it had to do with the standdown of NORAD, then I can discuss. I'm tryin to pull the people into discussin on that issue but most have backed away.

I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...

Davidjames...sorry for the delay. I will come back later.

What does it tell you when the premier forum for discussing the 9/11 CT
theory bans all those who dare post evidence that the collapses went down just the way the official version said they did?

How many of your "facts" you posted here turned out to be true geggy?

How many lies of the 9/11 "truth" movement have you parroted back to us here, only to be shown for the lies they are?

And yet you cling to your precious conspiracy theory w/ religious fervor.
Even after you admitted that the WTC collapses did not look like a controlled demolition!

 

[60hzxtl]

The sad part is that the CT movement might actually be hurting any actual investigation. By fabricating evidence, like Mark Hoffman or Piltdown Man, they are setting any actual investigation years back, because the investigators have to weed out what was made up and what is real.

But CT'ers are not about a conclusion. ("Like man, we're only asking questions an stuff")

They want to chase imaginary bad guys, shadows and puukas. (see: Harvey)

You NEVER catch them, you just keep chasing.

They want an issue, they don't WANT answers.

 

[senorpogo]

But CT'ers are not about a conclusion. ("Like man, we're only asking questions an stuff").

That's what I hate the most about the CTs.

They make assertions and claims. People thendisprove, discredit, and debunk them through hard work and a lot of research. Then, the CTs provide other evidence. Again, hard work and research disproves that. The cycle repeats until the CTs fall back to the "we're just asking questions" position.

After people go through all the hard work to show that their claims are bogus, CTs then claim that it was never about the claims themselves. It doesn't matter that all those claims were completely wrong. Nope, what was important was that they were "questioning things".

It is *#@!ing infuriating. It's intellectually dishonest. It's completely cowardly.

 

[60hzxtl]

That's what I hate the most about the CTs.

They make assertions and claims. People thendisprove, discredit, and debunk them through hard work and a lot of research. Then, the CTs provide other evidence. Again, hard work and research disproves that. The cycle repeats until the CTs fall back to the "we're just asking questions" position.

It is *#@!ing infuriating. It's intellectually dishonest. It's completely cowardly.

That's why they say arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still_____ (insert un-pc term for I.Q. under 90.)

 

[senorpogo]

That's why they say arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still_____ (insert un-pc term for I.Q. under 90.)

Problem with the 9/11 CT crowd is that they pull the same stuff off the internet.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...

Nonsense.

 

[senorpogo]

I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing. I do believe they're legit. Some engineers just don't want to give out their names in sake of their jobs, lives, etc and to avoid creating any kinds of controversy that would pull them away from their time with family, jobs, etc...

Considering that pretty much all of your (and the CT crowd's) evidence has been proven false or intentionally misleading, how can you honestly believe that this one bit of evidence is legit?

 

[dubfan]

Sorry, slightly OT here....

I've noticed the CTs are calling for a "new investigation" (Dylan & Korey & Jason are sporting "Invesitgate 9-11!" T-shirts), and they're demanding that Pentagon video and WTC video & photos be released, etc.

Now, for the love of God's green earth, does anyone here think that these guys are going to BELIEVE any of that evidence once it's released?

They'll look at video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon and we'll be in for another round of armchair photogrammetry and discussions of specular highlights and pods and missiles and all the other crap that's plagued the discussions of the two WTC planes.

They're also over there alternately high-fiving each other and standing around with puzzled looks after their holding company bought the WTC blueprints from the Port Authority (they want to look for evidence of explosive charges, you see). They're puzzled -- but the Port Authority is in on it! Why would they agree to sell us the blueprints!

And what, pray tell, are they gonna do, when they examine the blueprints and they find there are no thermite charges, no wiring for detonators, nor anything of the sort. Why -- it's part of the conspiracy! The Port Authority sold us doctored blueprints!

 

[WildCat]

BTW dubfan, nice work in this thread. Only a matter of time before they ban you for the offense of thinking critically.

 

[senorpogo]

Sorry, slightly OT here....

I've noticed the CTs are calling for a "new investigation" (Dylan & Korey & Jason are sporting "Invesitgate 9-11!" T-shirts), and they're demanding that Pentagon video and WTC video & photos be released, etc.

Now, for the love of God's green earth, does anyone here think that these guys are going to BELIEVE any of that evidence once it's released?

They'll look at video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon and we'll be in for another round of armchair photogrammetry and discussions of specular highlights and pods and missiles and all the other crap that's plagued the discussions of the two WTC planes.

They're also over there alternately high-fiving each other and standing around with puzzled looks after their holding company bought the WTC blueprints from the Port Authority (they want to look for evidence of explosive charges, you see). They're puzzled -- but the Port Authority is in on it! Why would they agree to sell us the blueprints!

And what, pray tell, are they gonna do, when they examine the blueprints and they find there are no thermite charges, no wiring for detonators, nor anything of the sort. Why -- it's part of the conspiracy! The Port Authority sold us doctored blueprints!

It's a point that has been made previously in this thread. When arguing with one of these guys (or anyone on any topic really), it's often worthwhile to ask at the very beginning of the debate - what will I have to show you to convince you that you're position is incorrect?

If most of the Loosers were honest, they'd say - nothing. Then we could save some time.

 

[geggy]

That's why they say arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You may win, but you are still_____ (insert un-pc term for I.Q. under 90.)

I find it amusing that you all think of this as a boxing match. I'm not trying to win at anything, just bringin my perspectives of sept 11 to the table for you to think about, is all.

Btw, my IQ is not below 90 if that is what your assumption is, it's actually much higher.

Some of you misunderstood. I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project, I'm saying it was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling as if the structure of the building was failing.

 

[60hzxtl]

Which is why I say the best thing to do is to take their VERY "documentary" made from media clips, and re-narrate it. Nothing on their film belongs to them. (I made it thru 1 hr. and quit in disgust and contempt.) Its stock footage, with their crap narration "You can clearly see the POD here!!" Follow it with your own narrator saying "Uh, Dylan, that's a shadow, from the engine, because even on 9/11, the sunlight was coming from the East. We'll let you call it a POD if you can tell us where the engine shadow went to."

"The fine white dust in the lobby is the sign of HIGH EXPLOSIVES!!!!"

"Uh, no Dylan, it just MIGHT be from the elevators that fell RIGHT BEHIND the reception area, and pushed the crap out of the elevator shafts - and as far as the elevator shafts being 'air tight' that would make them pneumatic tubes. . . "

It could be knocked off in a week, could be made in time for their big push this coming 9/11,

Mock them with their own narration.

 

[DavidJames]

I can't blame some of you for being skeptical about the letters coming from engineerings all over the US speaking out against the official story of wtc collapsing.

As already stated, the link you provided identified 1 ONE (ONE), alleged structural engineer.

I do believe they're legit.

Of course you believe they are legit, because you do not think critically. You are a conspiracy nut, at one point you said you didn't want to be considered a CT, well until you actually start to think critically, you are a CT

Some engineers just don't want to give out their names

Some? Excuse me but NONE have given out their names.

 

[60hzxtl]

I find it amusing that you all think of this as a boxing match. I'm not trying to win at anything, just bringin my perspectives of sept 11 to the table for you to think about, is all.

Btw, my IQ is not below 90 if that is what your assumption is, it's actually much higher.

You miss the point of the comment, which is not original.

The point is why bother to prove anything to someone who just wants the issue.

When you say stuff that equals 'it looks just like a controlled demolition except when it doesn't, because its unique and different,' my head hurts because you think that means something.


I'd say you would think this was "Very Unique" but I doubt you'd get the
joke.

9/11 was just like any other day, except for those pesky planes flyin' in there.

 

[dubfan]

BTW dubfan, nice work in this thread. Only a matter of time before they ban you for the offense of thinking critically.

Thanks. I'm surprised I've lasted this long. I think it's mostly kids over there, and I think they mean well. It's hard to get too angry at them. I'm disappointed in them that they don't think more clearly, and I'm starting to get REALLY angry at the government, because it's their own actions that have created the fertile soil for this crap to grow, but the people I'm most pissed off about are Dylan Avery & Co. These guys are frauds, pure and simple, and they have no idea how destructive they are.