• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
milesalpha said:
Sun Zoo's closing paaragraph in his latest post.

....

" This is a search for truth, based on clear eyed analysis and reason, taking the entire rational framework and all phenomenon and information, including everything that's been presented so far, into consideration."
Click to expand...

There's a rational framework?!?

I always thought it was a myth!!!

;)
 
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4390&st=60

I hadn't come across this thread until now. I like Jenabell's way of thinking: "Safety in numbers is the proven path". If all the lemmings are going in one direction, therefore we should all follow, even if the path leads to our demise (I know the lemming thing is a myth btw).

I like this particular gem: "No see your logic is getting in the way of your assumptions."


edited to correct quote
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
I wish I had saved the email I got from a CT, which said something like "You think your [sic] so smart, but all you have is logic."
Click to expand...

I wish I had taperecorded the time my CT sister yelled at me "Get out of here...I don't want to hear your damn logic!!".

To which I replied "That's the first fact you've uttered all morning." :D
 
Hutch said:
I am having a little trouble with the picture analysis over there--you know, where he claims the plane is too long to be United 175--Gravy, is there any good rebuttal or professional photog that can help?
Click to expand...
I made the measurements myself on his picture of the plane that hit the South Tower, and I get similar numbers. He's comparing the distance from the engine nacelle fronts, to the nose of the plane, and comparing that to the distance from the engine fronts to the rear of the wingtips. On a 767-300, the wing is basically the same size, but the fuselage is longer. At the first pass, it does seem that the ratio is much closer to that of a 767-300 instead of the 767-200 that was Flight 175.

The next part I'd like to investigate is the angle of the plane. The way the measurements are done, it's not too sensitive to the bank angle of the plane, but it would be sensitive to whether the nose was closer to the camera than the tail (since the wingtips are much higher than the engines, what with the plane in a high-g bank). If the nose is closer to the camera than the tail, the engine-to-wing distance will be foreshortened, and would tend to make a -200 look more like a -300.
 
Gravy said:
Plan Omega-3 initiated, sir!


Oops. Never mind.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

We'll make do. I need you to go to the Motel 6 in Paris, Texas, and take the Gideon Bible from Room 212. Take it to Cabin 4 in Devil's Den State Park, and place it under the bed.

In exactly two weeks, go back to Cabin 4, and tear out page 307 from the book. Fold it into a paper airplane (standard, nothign fancy) and throw it out the window.

THat should salvage things.
 
Miss me?

Zogby poll: over 70 million american adults support new 9/11 investigation

Over 124 million american adults voted in 2004 election.

POCCY!
POCCY!
POCCY!
 
geggy said:
Miss me?

Zogby poll: over 70 million american adults support new 9/11 investigation

Over 124 million american adults voted in 2004 election.

POCCY!
POCCY!
POCCY!
Click to expand...

Could anyone get more annoying?

888644724450a71ba.jpg
 
geggy said:
Miss me?

Zogby poll: over 70 million american adults support new 9/11 investigation

Over 124 million american adults voted in 2004 election.
Click to expand...
Link to that poll, please?
And an apology for calling me a liar, while you're at it.


edited to fix spelling
 
Last edited:
I love all of these calls from the CTs for a "new investigation". WTF? They don't believe common sense, they don't believe logic, they don't believe experts who tell them they're full of isht, WTH should anyone think they'd believe a new investigation? It'll just give them more fodder for more conspiracy BS.
 
dubfan said:
I love all of these calls from the CTs for a "new investigation". WTF? They don't believe common sense, they don't believe logic, they don't believe experts who tell them they're full of isht, WTH should anyone think they'd believe a new investigation? It'll just give them more fodder for more conspiracy BS.
Click to expand...

And to whom are they asking? The government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom