Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ha, ha! I guess they figured that the tanks and the WTC were just alike in that they were large objects and there were two of them.

Exactly. And it's also worth noting that most expert companies in demolition do a test run before a big demo on a building. Usually, it's on empty tanks that bare no structural resemblence what-so-ever to the building that's to be blown up.

I'm just finishing up the guide now. You know, when you sit down and see how absurd all these CT claims are, you can't help but wonder why it is they even have to be debunked? Seriously. It's a shame Gravy had to spend X nights and Y hours doing this when he could have been doing something else productive.
 
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

(Edmund Burke)

Here's to ya Gravy - you've done your part. And more.

Five people I crossed paths with are dead in hole. They just went to work that day. They shouldn't be spit on too.
 
Well, we don't know what geggy does for a living, but we know what he thinks of his job
Put the key of despair into the lock of apathy. Turn the knob of mediocrity slowly and open the gates of despondency-welcome to a day in the office.
I suppose fantasizing is a nice escape from that. But why not pick a subject to fantasize over that doesn't matter so much?
 
Gravy, I'm still getting that "tiff compressor" message on page 73.
 
One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.

For example, they drag Larry Silverstein into it. Why? It is quite possible to crash a plane into a building without first notifying the landlord. Why would then conspirators need to reveal their plans to him? He's just one more mouth to keep silent.

There's the allegations about the stock market. Me, if I was going to commit mass murder, I wouldn't mention it in advance to a bunch of share dealers, for fear that one of them might talk. The CTs, however, are eager to add these speculators to the list of people who are complicit and silent.

Then there's the bit where for no apparent reason the conspirators evacuate the passengers from the planes. This means that the conspirators now need ground crew to land the planes, secretly, people to hide the passengers, and you need to coerce forensic medical teams into pretending they found body parts. You need a whole call center full of people pretending to be frightened passengers phoning friends and relatives, and their deception must be perfect. And THEY have to keep quiet afterwards.

Now instead of involving all these people, why not just crash the planes into the building with the passengers on board? This would also have the effect of making people think that the planes crashed with the passengers on board --- and wouldn't need all the extra conspirators.

Then there's the fact that the planes were monitored on radar. If the planes stopped off somewhere to unload all the passengers, then this requires the people monitoring the planes on radar to be part of the conspiracy.

Again, we have to ask --- instead of involving all these extra people, why not just fly the plane into the building? By adding these senseless manoevres to the conspiracy, the CTs add hundreds to the tally of conspirators.

Then there's Flight 77. Apparently, the conspirators wished to give the impression that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So they hid Flight 77 somewhere, and fired a missile disguised as a jumbo jet at the Pentagon instead. This, of course, requires lots of people to design and build a fake jumbo jet. And someone to fire it at the Pentagon.

Now, the conspirators could have dispensed with the services of all these people, and still given the impression that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon BY CRASHING FLIGHT 77 INTO THE PENTAGON. But they seem to be addicted to doing things the hard way.

So the CTs wilfully add in to the conspiracy a secret THE SIZE OF A JUMBO JET, and the people to design build it.

And so we come on to the controlled demolition. Not content with arranging one attack on the Twin Towers, the conspirators went to the trouble of arranging TWO, requiring completely different sets of technical experts. Instead of going with the claim that Evil Repulicans destroyed the Twin Towers BY CRASHING PLANES INTO THEM --- the CTs blandly double the size of the conspiracy.

There's the infamous "pull it" remark. Now, what were the conspirators thinking when they decided to delegate this bit of the conpiracy to firemen? Why not leave it in the capable hands of the people who rigged the explosives in the first place? But no, let's drag in yet another bunch of people to be complicit!

Now of course in order to make their theory PLAUSIBLE, the CTs should be hotly denying that it required the collaboration of FIREMEN, OF ALL PEOPLE. But instead, they insist on it.

And then there's the matter of clearing up the rubble of this controlled demolition. Four different firms were hired. Experts in the field, they would have surely recognised the shearing of the steel columns which would have been produced by a controlled demolition. All those people have to keep their silence.

Again, the CTs could save themselves this problem by simply claiming that Evil Republicans crashed planes into the towers, CAUSING THEM TO COLLAPSE. But no, instead let's add another few hundred collaborators.

And then the CTs make even more trouble for themselves by insisting that the fake collapse was a CLUMSY fake. Instead of making the towers collapse in such a way that they looked like towers collapsing, the conspiracy chose instead to destroy them in a way that the discerning can recognise as a controlled demolition.

Having done that, the conspirators merely need to coerce, blackmail and intimidate tens of thousands of technical experts in construction and demolition for the rest of their lives.

And more structural engineers graduate every year. Hundreds of them. FOREVER.

Now if the CTs really have their little hearts set on the use of explosives to bring down the towers, then why not say that the fake collapse was a GOOD fake which FOOLED the experts? But no: instead they require thousands of people to be coerced into silence.

By this point the conspiracy blackmailing and monitoring so many thousands of people that the number of people required just to do all the coercion is itself significant. People don't just blackmail themselves.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Perhaps the blackmailers blackmail each other.

And finally there are the CTs who wish to drag in every other violent event of the past century --- Oklahoma City, the shooting of Malcom X, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now the conspiracy is not just enormous but has been HANDED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION. Without anyone talking.

The CTs' mistake, I think, is this. They suppose that the more aspects of 9/11 they argue to be bogus, the more weight this adds to their conspiracy theory. But in order to argue that any particular aspect of the incident was fake, they need to add another dozen or hundred or thousand people to the conspiracy. The result of this is that their theory now requires THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE as willing or unwilling collaborators than would be required simply to crash the planes and blame it on a bunch of Arabs. And it requires the conspirators to involve all these extra people just, it would seem, for the heck of it. We have fake terrorists, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake radar records, fake seismographic records, fake jumbo jets, fake building collapses, fake body parts, fake forensic evidence, and fake expert opinions --- and of all these ONLY THE FAKE TERRORISTS are actually necessary to produce a fake terrorist attack. All the other fakes seem to have been put into the conspiracy just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.
 
C'mon geggy, what do you do for a living? You can tell us. After all, the government knows, what with that W-2 you file every year on April 15th.
 
Gravy - I got this message when I downloaded your Loose Change critique:

FAIR USE NOTICE: While this document consists of significant amounts of original content, in order to explore and advance understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, it has been necessary to reference some material that is copyrighted. Such use falls under the 'fair use' provisions set out in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Equivalent provisions exist in EU law. Thus, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information, specifically for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner
 
Gravy - I got this message when I downloaded your Loose Change critique:

FAIR USE NOTICE: While this document consists of significant amounts of original content, in order to explore and advance understanding of the events surrounding 9/11, it has been necessary to reference some material that is copyrighted. Such use falls under the 'fair use' provisions set out in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Equivalent provisions exist in EU law. Thus, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information, specifically for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner
Yes, that's on the last page.Did you get the rest of it?
 
One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.
Their brains must have fuses. Otherwise they'd blow up or catch on fire, wouldn't they?
 
Gravy, I'm still getting that "tiff compressor" message on page 73.
Well, you didn't miss much there. It's just a steel stress/strain chart, and you already know that steel weakens when it gets hot. I was tempted to make my own chart that showed steel getting stronger as it heats up, just to catch the occasional CTer screaming, "Aha!"
 
Well, you didn't miss much there. It's just a steel stress/strain chart, and you already know that steel weakens when it gets hot. I was tempted to make my own chart that showed steel getting stronger as it heats up, just to catch the occasional CTer screaming, "Aha!"

hahahahahahaha, that would be awesome. they would totally buy that.
 
hahaha nice Dr Adequate. Thats a brilliant piece of work.
someone who is registered at the loose nuts forum should post it.
 
You know, when you sit down and see how absurd all these CT claims are, you can't help but wonder why it is they even have to be debunked? Seriously. It's a shame Gravy had to spend X nights and Y hours doing this when he could have been doing something else productive.
A few nights ago I was signing off of the JREF chat room so that I could complete an article I was writing for the StopKaz site regarding Kaz's claim that she has earned a doctorate.

On the way out, I told all in the room that it felt like I was "struggling to prove the painfully obvious."

Someone else in the room - forgive me, I don't recall who - said "That's what all skeptics feel like they are doing."

The more I thought about that statement, the more I saw how true it was.

Sometimes what a skeptic does, particularly a skeptic who has chosen to take on a project such as the one Gravy has tackled, is to explain to others, sometimes in minute detail, something which he or she finds painfully obvious. This is done in hopes that it will inturn become painfully obvious to at least some in their audience who otherwise would not have put it all together.

This is a worthwhile endeavor, well worth the days and hours put into it.
 
A few nights ago I was signing off of the JREF chat room so that I could complete an article I was writing for the StopKaz site regarding Kaz's claim that she has earned a doctorate.

On the way out, I told all in the room that it felt like I was "struggling to prove the painfully obvious."

Someone else in the room - forgive me, I don't recall who - said "That's what all skeptics feel like they are doing."

The more I thought about that statement, the more I saw how true it was.

Sometimes what a skeptic does, particularly a skeptic who has chosen to take on a project such as the one Gravy has tackled, is to explain to others, sometimes in minute detail, something which he or she finds painfully obvious. This is done in hopes that it will inturn become painfully obvious to at least some in their audience who otherwise would not have put it all together.

This is a worthwhile endeavor, well worth the days and hours put into it.

True. Very true.

Just for the record, I'm was never suggesting otherwise.
It's just sad that the painfully obvious isn't so obvious to some.
But I guess if it were, this forum wouldn't exist, Randi would be selling real estate (or whatever Randi does outside of magic and thinking critically), and the world would be an infinitely better place.

But that ain't the way it is. And I should stop complaining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom