Loose Change - Part IV

[Brainster]

Worst Loose Change Debunking Ever

Eric Hufschmid or one of his fans appears to have put this hilarious attack video against the Loosers together. From what I can hear, all the sound bites come from the infamous phone conversation a few months back where Dylan and his buddies tried to get Hufschmid to take down his page accusing them of being part of the plot.

The creator has very, very carefully quote mined the phone conversation for clues that the Loosers are capitalist pawns of the Zionist Illuminati. It's funny to see their own tactics used against them, but anybody who's listened to that phone conversation will realize how carefully cropped their words are. My favorite comes near the end, where Bermas supposedly says, "John Kerry--fan of John Kerry by the way." In fact, when I listened to this phone conversation three months ago, what Bermas actually said was, "John Kerry. And I'm no fan of John Kerry by the way..." This Dowdification (changing the meaning of a quote by removing a few inconvenient words like "And I'm no") is patently dishonest.

But it's funny as hell.

Hat Tip on the video to Chacal in the Neo-Nazis Driving the 9-11 "Truth" Movement thread.

ETA: My guess is it's not Hufschmid himself; surely he'd know better than to call the Mossad the Mossaud.

 

[MarkyX]

Eric eric eric..

You need to learn lessons from me.

 

[TjW]

Well if we listen to the CTs, a Boeing 757 wouldn't do that much damage to the Pentagon, so there's no way it could've been a Global Hawk. Unless it were packed with explosives, but then why the huge fuel fireball, and not an explosive blast? [rhetorical question]And why didn't they think about this before suggesting it, or do they not think?[/rhetorical question]

My goodness, you think that would be a problem for a CT'r? Clearly, shaped charges were embedded during the "reconstruction", etc, etc... still more proof of a conspiracy.
Please note: I'm not advocating this myself.

 

[njslim]

America Free Press (AFP)

Someone has been leaving copies of this rag in the lobby of the local
supermarkets (Northern NJ) next to the community bulletin boards with
sign FREE - TAKE ONE. Saw one couple months back blaming "Zionists"
for the World Trade Center.

 

[Kent1]

Im going to post this photo now. We have had it for a while, but I didn't have permission to make it public until now.
The photo is from Steve Spak

NIST did NOT know of the photo until we gave it to them a little while back.
It IS one of the best known photos of the southside damage.

So here it is.....I'll let you guys debate it.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm


A statement from Steve Spak:

"This photo was taken a couple of hours before number 7 WTC collapsed. Two water mains that supplied lower Manhattan were damaged leaving little or no water pressure in the area. Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower. You can see a big hole on the lower floors in this photo. I believe that the Chiefs made the right decision in letting 7 WTC burn."

Steve Spak
stevespak.com

Also he told me:
"Sorry, That's the only photo that shows the damage, The smoke cleared for a second."

 

[kookbreaker]

Impressive shot! I'm glad he got it!

 

[Belz...]

Another myth I'd like to end. I see Merc doesn't understand how building 7 was structured. Its supposed to be blue at the top.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9496&st=60

Apparently, this got SRW banned:

Man you are reaching, Pulling down a building is not the same as inploding it. If you watched what it took to Pull bldg6 you would know that never happend to 7. Who pulled it Godzilla with the help of Mothera?

Merc has a short temper, apparently.

 

[SRW]

Apparently, this got SRW banned:



Merc has a short temper, apparently.

That among other things, 8 out of 15 of the posts I made over there were deleted. The results are some strange one sided arguments Merc has with himself.

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary, probability is evidence and often strong proof. I suppose that you reject every argument that is based on probability -- all of modern nuclear and particle physics research? Do you write off every strange thing as coincidence, no matter how unlikely? Or do you say at one point that it's unlikely to be coincidence and that an alternative explanation is more likely.

I'm sorry. Here you just show an utter ignorance of probability. Every event is, in itself, an occurance of very low probability, given that we don't know all the factors involved.

As an example of how little things can change a lot: I wouldn't be a computer programmer if not for a little 1992 game called Star Control II, and I probably wouldn't be here talking to you. Isn't that amazing ? What are the odds ? 1:1, actually.

In this case, he hit the point of least damage, and he appear to aim for that and no other.

Well, he didn't get to TRY AGAIN, dummy.

In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves? Does it insult those who fought and sacrificed their lives on the German side of WWII to suggest that they were part of aggressive war, invading and conquering other countries?

Why, yes. Yes it is. Though I seldom agree with US policies, I would never dare presume that US soldiers risk their lives for petty reasons.

My earlier quote: "3) Al Qaeda persuaded the Bush Administration to staunchly oppose investigation of the attacks, to stall and stonewall when investigation occured, to grossly underfund the 9/11 Commission, etc."

Boy, they really are poor at covering up their tracks, aren't they ?

Please name one fact that doesn't "fit" the official story.

Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.

Speculation.

1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.

That's the most hilarious thing I've heard all week.

This reminds me of one of our clients here, if you'll bear with me. Because most of our clients are government agencies, when looking for companies to fullfill specific tasks for them, they HAVE to pick the lowest bidder, by law, so long as this bidder / company matches a certain profile. Well, this particular client wanted a very specific company, and made that profile so that ONLY that one company could be eligible.

My point ? Your first point MAKES the official story impossible to start with.

2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane.

I can see where this is going. You're not asking for evidence to convince you. You're telling us what SHOULD'VE happened on 9/11. Well, that's just too bad. That's not what happened. Now let's find out what DID happen and why.

 

[Kent1]

That among other things, 8 out of 15 of the posts I made over there were deleted. The results are some strange one sided arguments Merc has with himself.

I guess taking screenshots might help.

I got another batch from Magnum Photos that shows lots of smoke from the southside, on top of all the videos and other photos we have.

These guys are starting to look like no planers.

Lets see if these links works: (you may have to register)
http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...JF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=248&SubE=2K7O3RKUAN7

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...TAP4C&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=15&SubE=2K7O3RKU3F4

 

[Belz...]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

Really ? Why ? Why would there be something suspicious ? 1 out of 5 sides was hit. There was 20% chances that this was the strengthened side. Add to this the fact that the north sides are harder to approach, and this probability jumps to 33%. Add that hitting the west side is just dumb because they weren't coming from that angle, and it jumps to 50%. Make him miss the Pentagon on the first approach, and what do you get ?

In this case, the spot hit by the aircraft just happened to be the spot that would do by far the least damage. Not only that, they appeared to aim for it and no place else.

Just because I clap my hands and thunder follows doesn't mean I caused the thunder. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.

Easy or difficult for someone who had a lot of trouble maintaining a steady altitude without the autopilot engaged? Easy or difficult for someone who was described as a poor pilot?

He was diving. Why would he need a steady altitude ? You're just inventing parameters that aren't there.

Okay, if the mode of attack were different -- not horizontal, 30 feet above the ground -- I might accept that they just happened to hit the point of least damage by luck. But that spot was targeted specifically.

You don't know that. You're still speculating.

How do you know that the government would have to expend an incredible amount of resources? Why couldn't the government do what Al Qaeda was supposed to have done? What could Al Qaeda do that the government couldn't do?

Because then they wouldn't have to cover it up.

No, the word is paralyze. We had an attack, and our "defense" forces played dead until the Pentagon was hit.

Not true. You might want to check your timeline again. Jets were mere minutes away when the south tower was hit.

That doesn't explain conduct like FBI officer Marion Bowman rewriting a memo by FBI agent Coleen Rowley to sabotage a warrant request to search a suspect's computer. It also doesn't explain the suspicious story of Al Qaeda expert John O'Neill, marginalized and then driven out of the FBI. It doesn't explain the repeated persistant disregard of numerous warnings the summer before 9/11.

You're right. It doesn't. Of course, you'll have to provide more than mere assertion.

Do you have that kind of understanding about Islam?

You tell me. Dying to destroy the enemies of the fate is a GUARANTEE for paradise, 72 virgin women and 28 pubescent boys. I think it's safe to say that the ends justified the means, in their eyes.

Do you really think that Atta's womanizing really was anything other than having fun and enjoying life? Do you think that was all part of the plot?

I think that, no matter what your faith is, in the end people simply do whatever the hell they WANT to do.

My whole point was that simplicity of a theory is no indication of how accurate the theory is. Thank's for echoing my point. I could make such examples myself.

You still don't understand what simplicity means when speaking of theories.

You're not thinking. If that guy is indepentently guessed, then there is reason for suspicion. You seem to be confused about any result versus one particular result. Or you are confusing aiming at a bull's-eye and hitting, versus drawing a bull's-eye around a bullet hole.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I ask people why they play lottery and their knee-jerk response is "well, someone's gotta win!" OF COURSE someone's gotta win, the odds of SOMEONE winning are very high. The odds of YOU winning ? Abysmal.

 

[Joytown]

I guess taking screenshots might help.

I got another batch from Magnum Photos that shows lots of smoke from the southside, on top of all the videos and other photos we have.

These guys are starting to look like no planers.

Lets see if these links works: (you may have to register)
http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...JF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=248&SubE=2K7O3RKUAN7

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...TAP4C&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=15&SubE=2K7O3RKU3F4

Wow .. fantastic set of photos.

More evidence against the absurd claim of "small fire at WTC7" (as well as corroborating photos for those who claim that the one "smoke" pic of WTC7 was photoshopped):

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=170&o=UY5

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=338&o=UY5

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...7O3RTAP4C&DT=DOC&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=22&o=UY5

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...7O3RTAP4C&DT=DOC&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=90&o=UY5


Also .. a shot of the jet engine part some are claiming to be planted:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=380&o=UY5

-Joytown

 

[Johnny C.]

do any of you guys have or know where i can get a picture of that buckled steel column from inside wtc5. was that from the NIST report?

 

[SRW]

I guess taking screenshots might help.

I got another batch from Magnum Photos that shows lots of smoke from the southside, on top of all the videos and other photos we have.

These guys are starting to look like no planers.

Lets see if these links works: (you may have to register)
http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...JF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=248&SubE=2K7O3RKUAN7

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...TAP4C&Pass=&Total=109&Pic=15&SubE=2K7O3RKU3F4

Facts of LC world:
All statements that do not agree with their view of events are faked.

All pictures that show bldg 7 burning or with damage to it are faked.

"Pull it " can only be interpreted as an order to demolish a building.

Critical thinking cannot and will not be allowed.

And as no plane hit bldg 7 It could only have fallen by CD.

Not that planes striking building have any significant affect on them.

No I really do think that Godzilla and Mothera are real possibilities in the LC'ers world. I'm banned until 2009, so I should be able to comment on "Loose change the finial finial finial, really were not kidding, this is it, last cut"

By the way these photos are really good.

 

[jhunter1163]

Belz:

Do you think the Ur-Quan were involved in 9/11?

 

[Brainster]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

Yes, but the key word in there is "then". If you calculate the odds of some improbable event happening beforehand, it can be quite astronomical. If you calculate the odds of some improbable event happening afterwards, it's a dead certainty. What were the odds that Mariano Rivera would give up two runs in the bottom of the ninth of game seven of the 2001 World Series? Pretty low, I'd say. That he did give up those two runs does not indicate that something sinister was behind it. It just indicates that a low probability event occurred.

 

[DavidJames]

You're not thinking. You're confusing "any possible" position with one position independently chosen. Sure, a flip of ten coins will produce one one-in-1024 result. But if I compare that with something independently chosen, say HTTHTHHTTH, then if it happens to match, there is something suspicious.

If you were to show evidence that you predicted that sequence of coin flips, that would indeed be suspicious. More importantly, if you were able to show evidence the pilot intended to hit that exact spot, that would also be suspicious. You've been asked multiple times now about that. Do you have any evidence the pilot choose that spot? The answer is a simple yes or no.

If you answer, yes, provide that evidence (not conjuecture, assumptions or guesses)

 

[Kent1]

The new debunking book has a better picture of this photo.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/C...2V6DH6VKE5OJF&SID=JMGEJNTIS3JFS&Pic=170&o=UY5

Its interesting to note how this fire continued to grow thoughout the various photos I've found.
Mike also notes it on his website. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

 

[Kent1]

I'm also hoping to get more photos from Wille Circone.
His photos aren't shown very often.

http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=125&topic_id=106251&mesg_id=106678
And another small batch at 911pictures
http://www.911pictures.com/photos_catalog.phtml?category=wtc&prenxt=168
http://www.911pictures.com/photos_catalog.phtml?category=wtc&prenxt=192
Like this
http://www.911pictures.com/photos_info.phtml?PID=911-1330&category=wtc

"Heavy volumes of smoke pour from building WTC-7 shortly before its collapse during the World Trade Center Disaster on September 11th, 2001"

 

[Brainster]

And as no plane hit bldg 7 It could only have fallen by CD.

Not that planes striking building have any significant affect on them.

Well put. The fascination with Building 7 seems to be rising; we'll see if it survives that Debunking 911 photo, which is terrific as are these.