Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
defaultdotxbe said:
i only read this far



the guard is being sent overseas because the regular army is being rotated back here, we have the same amount of protection weve had for at least the last 5 years

another thing is, dont US forces comprise most, if not all UN forces?
Click to expand...

LOL The UN couldn't even take over Bosnia, with a population of less than 4 million people. There are over 2 million servicemen in the armed services, only about 120,000 are in Iraq. I think we will be safe should Canada decide to pull a fast one...
 
LashL said:
Jennie, it sounds like you're talking about the demolition of the Landmark Tower building. I remember seeing a video of it in which a young boy presses the button for detonation in one version of that demo. But there is another view of it taken from a helicopter which is even better because of its vantage point - it shows the entire building and has some visuals that were not apparent in the boy scout version that I saw - as well as the sound, of course. Here is a link:
Click to expand...

You know, here at post 14, I'm really getting annoyed with this no URL posting rule. I just typed out a response to this, incidentally quoting the whole quote (is that redundant?), and had the entire reply wiped out because I didn't take out the URL. Urrrgh. I'll try again.

This looks like the same building, yes. And it's another really cool video. There must be something in us all (female-types included) that likes smashing sand castles, because it's fun to watch big thing being blown up (on purpose, that is). Of course, my granddaughters howl with glee when they knock down towers of blocks that I build, and so do I (when they do it, i mean).

BUT, I've been reading this thread for awhile, and recently at both ends (meaning i keep up with the new stuff while slogging thru the old) for some time. And there've been requests from the JREFers to (mostly) Geggy for Real Live Controlled Demolitions that Look Like the WTC's going down. And guess what. To my inexperienced eyes, this building doesn't look Anything Like the WTC's. But what do I know, not only am I just a lowly admin, while Geggy is a .... err.... did he ever say what he does?

Another point is, how many building this tall have ever fallen down from Any Cause, let alone being hit by Really Big Airplanes? My guess is ... 2.
 
LashL said:
I started watching the video, thinking that I'd do a critique as I'm actually looking for a research project to tackle, but man, that guy is painful to watch and listen to.

It's basically just him sitting there, spouting his opinions with next to no citations or evidence but loads of innuendo and accusation, with the occasional short video clip thrown in.

I was typing notes while watching it, then realized that perhaps I could find a transcript online and lo and behold:

http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/...df#search=""the great conspiracy" transcript"

There appears to be nothing of note in the entire thing; it appears to consist of all the same old crap although with perhaps more focus on the war pretext angle (Reichstag fire, Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Kuwaiti incubators) and a bit more aim at the media complicity which allows GWB to get away with the whole conspiracy.

The usual suspects: Norad stand down; war games; GWB's behaviour at the Booker elementary school on the morning of 9/11 and later saying that he saw the first plane on television outside the classroom; PNAC and the new Pearl Harbor; Webster Tarpley; Naudet brothers film means prior knowledge; slowness in appointing commission; less spent on 9/11 commission than other investigations; lack of independence of the commission; jet fuel can't melt steel; SAMS at the Pentagon; WTC7 had only minor fires, fell in free fall into its own footprint, obviously a controlled demolition done for some nefarious purpose relating to the Enron documents that he supposes would have been housed at the SEC offices; Larry Silverstein admits that it was a controlled demolition via the "pull it" comment; 9/11 commission should be called the 9/11 coverup commission; media complicity; only the few and the brave can see the trooth and the rest of us just really want to be lied to because we do not want to have to face the big bad truth.

There really isn't much in it that hasn't been thoroughly done before. The only slight difference about this piece of drivel and most of the others is that he talks a bit more about media complicity (calls himself a media critic, so I guess that's why) and he draws some direct and not at all subtle comparisons between Hitler and Bush.

Like I said, I didn't watch it the whole thing because it really was too agonizing to watch him for more than the first 20 minutes (which took me a lot longer than that because I was typing a paraphrased transcript at first so kept pausing and typing, pausing and typing, etc).

It probably isn't even worth critiquing because it's unlikely that anyone watches it all the way through.

That said, it would be a simple matter of using the work that has already been done and rearranging the order to match the video if the people who have done the prior work don't mind. I.e. it's all in the Loose Change guides, with very few exceptions.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right, it has all been debunked seperately so a new critique would be a bit of a waste. Like yourself I couldn't bring myself to watch the entire thing, it rivals a typical Alex Jones movie for quantity of nauseous flammery.
 
Gravy said:
Huh. Works for me. It's just a picture of a remora fish attached to a shark.
Click to expand...
Ah. It says I am not authorized to view the page. Apparently only high ranking gov't shills like you are allowed to view it.
 
Last edited:
I have been at this for a good 4-5 months now. Not a long time compared to some of you, I admit.

What bothers me about most of the "Truthers" who give explanation, and propose alternative theories to the Official story, is this...

They talk/profess/claim to be experts on everything. Now, I myself am no slacker. I am well educated, and in my field I can carry my own, and I am an expert in certain areas. That said, I never claim to be an expert in engineering, or controlled demolition, or material strengths and compositions, or photo analysis. I notice, that even those here, who are much better versed than I in all matters 9/11 don't claim to be experts, but rather refer to expert papers, or quote expert sources with their claims.

Those, like Hoffman, however, seem to believe they are experts in every field. They must, for when making claims or theories, they do not quote "Experts" or rarely do. More often tehy spue their opinion as fact, or even worse they speak about things way out of their realm of expertese.

This is why, when someone refers me to an article by some of these people, I cringe, and very rarely actually go read it.
 
T.A.M. said:
I have been at this for a good 4-5 months now. Not a long time compared to some of you, I admit.

What bothers me about most of the "Truthers" who give explanation, and propose alternative theories to the Official story, is this...

They talk/profess/claim to be experts on everything. Now, I myself am no slacker. I am well educated, and in my field I can carry my own, and I am an expert in certain areas. That said, I never claim to be an expert in engineering, or controlled demolition, or material strengths and compositions, or photo analysis. I notice, that even those here, who are much better versed than I in all matters 9/11 don't claim to be experts, but rather refer to expert papers, or quote expert sources with their claims.

Those, like Hoffman, however, seem to believe they are experts in every field. They must, for when making claims or theories, they do not quote "Experts" or rarely do. More often tehy spue their opinion as fact, or even worse they speak about things way out of their realm of expertese.

This is why, when someone refers me to an article by some of these people, I cringe, and very rarely actually go read it.
Click to expand...

Its crap, but need to be looked at.

"Minutes before its collapse the South Tower showed no visible flames, only dark smoke"
But he even gets that wrong.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem5/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.close.mpg
I guess Bazant doesn't exist in his world either.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
another thing is, dont US forces comprise most, if not all UN forces?
Click to expand...


The UN don't have any "forces". They have Peacekeepers - who are made up of the armed forces of various member states - not including the US (who don't do UN stuff). But when the UN wants to fight a war they don't do it themselves - they grant permission for an international coalition to do it. And yes, the United States has provided the majority of forces for all of these international coalitions - with the exception of INTERFET (East Timor).

-Andrew
 
LashL said:
Jennie, it sounds like you're talking about the demolition of the Landmark Tower building. I remember seeing a video of it in which a young boy presses the button for detonation in one version of that demo. But there is another view of it taken from a helicopter which is even better because of its vantage point...
Click to expand...
That's not taken from a helicopter, it's taken from a nearby (taller) building.
 
Seing

gumboot said:
The most depressing thing about the CTers is how they all think they're expert photographic interpreters just because they've looked at a few videos.

I worked damn hard to earn the meagre interpretation skills I have...

To suggest such vastly superior skills can appear as if by magic is insulting...:mad:

-Andrew
Click to expand...


all they have is video seeing is not knowing.
 
WildCat said:
One of the loosers has figured out that the UN is going to invade the US... somehow the organization that stood by helplessly throughout every conflict in the past 50 years is suddenly going to take over the most powerful country on the planet. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

I really hate to reinforce stereotypes, but I'm afraid we in Texas are better equipped and more thoroughly trained than "the UN". We are *genuinely* the Friendship State, however, so they are cordially welcomed to try.
 
Brainster said:
Well, he also buys into the Flight 93 was shot down theory.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I forgot about that part. He is mosly known for his CD work. I met a fellow that works with Hoffman.

Jim is a better CT in that he is at least willing to cast a critical eye at some 9/11 theories. His articles on Fetzer and ST9/11 are excellent. I always like using material written by other CTs to debunk bad theories.
 
Terrific NYTimes Article on the Conspiracy Theorists

As found in the IHT. The writer makes it clear in this section that he doesn't have much agreement with the nutbars:

The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.

Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.

All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other.
Click to expand...

Superb article with excellent argumentation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom