Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well done, TAM. I knew you'd come through.

And I agree with you. There are certainly unanswered questions regarding 9/11, and I believe that the USG has been less than completely forthcoming in its answers to those questions. However, that being said, I also believe that the official version of the events of 9/11 is as close as we'll ever come to the truth, and the obfuscation of the USG has far more to do with (rule8)-covering than it does with any purported conspiracy. The official story works, despite its holes. Maybe in 20 or 30 years more details will be declassified, but until then we'll have to limp along with the official story as best we can.
 
T.A.M. said:
the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government.
...
Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics.
Click to expand...

Well said. All this CT garbage is a distraction, and I hate to see us get sidetracked. We need to remember the real perpetrators of 9/11 and the many other incidents.

-Kate
 
jhunter1163 said:
Maybe in 20 or 30 years more details will be declassified, but until then we'll have to limp along with the official story as best we can.
Click to expand...

I would have to recommend Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton's book, "Without Precident", which describes their frustrations in getting the FAA and NORAD to be forthcoming to the 9/11 Commission. Basically, the various agencies are trying cover their incompetence, screw-ups, and protect their bureaucratic turf. Government as usual. Which is why it amazes me that CTs have such wild expectations of what government is capable of, like what they see in Hollywood or in 60 minutes of CSI.

-Kate
 
MarkyX said:
You know they are hurting when they start personally attacking people now. Poor, mediocre, or great use of the English language does not invalidate one's claims.

The writer has made no evidence in the entire article as to whether or not "Pull it" is truly a controlled demolition term involving explosives. We have our evidence, from people in the demolition industry to the footage at "America Rebuilds" where they use cables to pull WTC 6.

They are afraid of us and it's showing.

EDIT: Speaking of which, PM does mention that no fire fighting was at WTC7. True, but the firemen were there, but they weren't fighting the fire due to warning signs the building was giving out of a possible collapse. You can read their statements in the New York Times listed on the Screw Loose Change video site.

EDIT: They also included my 9/11 Deniers Speak video...awww
Click to expand...

Jones states:
"So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?"

Well, in earlier reports like FEMA they mentioned there was no one in the building HOWEVER, in later reports such as NIST, there were various reports of firefighters in the building even after 12:00. There were various search and rescue attempts mentioned sometime between 12:30 and 2:00.
See NIST
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
Starting at around pg 108

Also at sometime after 11:30 there were numerous firefighers and officers coming out of building 7. These firefighers indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around building 7 beacuse they thought the building was going to collapse. See page 110


And of cource Mike's site
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

Even Paul Thompsons timeline mentions this.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...tles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

I agree with the grammar, he should clean it up a little, but its a small point.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Speaking of which, PM does mention that no fire fighting was at WTC7. True, but the firemen were there, but they weren't fighting the fire due to warning signs the building was giving out of a possible collapse. You can read their statements in the New York Times listed on the Screw Loose Change video site.




FDNY personnel were searching the building for any victims or stragglers
left behind. If you read the FIREHOUSE magazine interviews - Capt Boyd
mentions that FDNY did attempt to fight fires but were hampered by lack
of water (building collapses severed most of the water mains in the area),
along with heavy personnel and equipment casualties. Boyd relates how
the crew was forced to scrounge hose ("rollups" in FDNY speak) and breathing
apparatus ("masks") from damaged or abandoned fire apparatus. Later FDNY
commanders decided to abandon WTC 7 and concentrate on rescue and
avoid further casualties. What FDNY personnel that were in the building
withdrew ("pulled") and a collapse zone (equal to 2 1/2 times height of
building ) was established. WTC 7 was left to its fate - remember listening
in on radio communications from scene while in my firehouse in NJ. By 2PM
FDNY was aware that WTC 7 was shifting and too dangerous to approach.
The CT moonbats have no concept of how firefighting operations are
conducted.
 
Watson is incredibly stupid. Linking to Mark's video is a colossal blunder. It will cause a good number to defect from the CT cult.

Paul Joseph Watson may have only watched the first portion 9/11 Deniers Speak. The later parts of the video are even more powerful than the portion with Jack Blood.
 
StoneWT said:
Watson is incredibly stupid. Linking to Mark's video is a colossal blunder. It will cause a good number to defect from the CT cult.

Paul Joseph Watson may have only watched the first portion 9/11 Deniers Speak. The later parts of the video are even more powerful than the portion with Jack Blood.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that he thinks I'm taking the Jack Blood part out of context.

No, they are laughing at the idea that people were willing to submit to a group of people with a "small box cutter". You know, those small box cutters AKA knives that are used to hurt people VERY badly and *gasp* kill them.

They think knifes are harmless. I would like for them to tell a friend of a friend of mine, who happens to be six feet below somewhere in Toronto, who was killed in a stabbing (no internet sympathie please)

And Paul thinks I am taking this **** out of context? No Paul, they are laughing at the victims who "couldn't stand up" to a knife and a threat of a fictional bomb.
 
MarkyX said:
Not to mention that he thinks I'm taking the Jack Blood part out of context.

No, they are laughing at the idea that people were willing to submit to a group of people with a "small box cutter". You know, those small box cutters AKA knives that are used to hurt people VERY badly and *gasp* kill them.

They think knifes are harmless. I would like for them to tell a friend of a friend of mine, who happens to be six feet below somewhere in Toronto, who was killed in a stabbing (no internet sympathie please)

And Paul thinks I am taking this **** out of context? No Paul, they are laughing at the victims who "couldn't stand up" to a knife and a threat of a fictional bomb.
Click to expand...
Ron Wieck (pomeroo) has a funny post over at 911blogger
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3111?page=1

Its right after the UFO and poetry guys and right before the the guy who said
"People just need to STFU with all the grammar stuff, including Paul Joseph Watson. PrisonPlanet has been good to me and has published some of my stuff, but that article just sucks. You suck even more for replying to it."


Also I saw some of the hate e-mail debunking911 recieved from the Alex Jones article.
Here's one of many stellar examples:

"hiding your idenity ,then coming up with some clever reason why still only means you have something to hide my guess you’re a jew, maybe this is the adl ,thanks for supporting the big lie.also another reason I think this site is jewish is because if you get down to the hardcore 911 truths the jews played a big part in 911,its no wonder to me that the only group of people coming out to debunk 911 are jewish ,you got something to hide?the talmud has taught you well to lie and deceive the goyim every chance you get.by the way I like most jews just because I'm calling a pig a pig does'nt mean I'm anti-pig .it just means I'm anti-you"
 
MarkyX said:
Not to mention that he thinks I'm taking the Jack Blood part out of context.

No, they are laughing at the idea that people were willing to submit to a group of people with a "small box cutter". You know, those small box cutters AKA knives that are used to hurt people VERY badly and *gasp* kill them.

They think knifes are harmless. I would like for them to tell a friend of a friend of mine, who happens to be six feet below somewhere in Toronto, who was killed in a stabbing (no internet sympathie please)

And Paul thinks I am taking this **** out of context? No Paul, they are laughing at the victims who "couldn't stand up" to a knife and a threat of a fictional bomb.
Click to expand...

one quarter inch of steel is enough to kill, if you have the strength and you have the will.
 
They also seem to forget all the close combat training these muscle hijackers followed. And anyway, I'm pretty sure before any of the passengers had any idea what was going on, the hijackers stabbed/killed one or more flight attendants/passengers, and that would have more than enough psycological effect on the other passengers to back away. That, and the bomb threat. They also seem to forget that before 9/11, planes got hijacked, where flown to some airport, and a standoff began, in which the hijackers wanted their demants met.
 
Just to re-make the point on the "boxcutters"...

Look at the pics of the knife from the Moussini(sp?) trial. The term "utility knife" would be better. It's one of those with the long, extentable, break-away blades. The kind that can be extended to 4 inches or so, and usually has multiple blades in the handle.

It's not a little bitty handle with a 1/4" corner of blade sticking out.
 
Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.
Click to expand...

What "crescendo of positive media attention?" Using the plural of medium implies that more than one outlet (TV, radio, internet, and newspaper) was giving it "positive" attention. Most noncritical news I've seen on the CT surrounding 9-11 has been reporting it's popularity on the Internet. IMO and as far as I can see the only medium outside of the net that gives it any regular attention at all is radio, and except during the anniversary of 9-11 it is restricted to the fringe programs like Coast to Coast.

The "official" story he speaks of is not the creation of the government alone, it is the accepted account of thousands of journalists, independent investigators, eyewitnesses, and (yes) gorvernment investigators. It's a case of trying to poison the well and demonize the theory before someone even mentions it by labeling the actual events as the "official" or "government" version.
 
"Boxcutters"

The real name for these knives is "tactical knives" - was case few months
of person in Atlanta (ex military) who was jumped by gang of teenage punks
armed with shotgun and pistol. All he had was tactical kife with blade
of about 2 1/2 - 2/34 ". He was able to kill one of gang and wound another!
Hey I want this guy backing me up in any kind of fight!
 
NJSlim, I saw a similar case in Philly a little while ago. An ex-Navy Seal was jumped by four punks, one with a gun, one with a knife. He killed one and badly wounded another before the others ran away. I think Philly muggers hold the world's record for stupidity, as two others tried to mug Joe Frazier a couple years ago. Yes, THAT Joe Frazier. Ex-heavyweight-champ Joe Frazier. Needless to say, it didn't go well for them.
 
T.A.M. said:
This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

TAM
Click to expand...

I've only watched the first 20 minutes or so. It does appear to be a non-conspiracy type video, but it's not called 9-11 Press for Truth by accident. Note particularly the creepy music whenever Bush is on the air, as compared to the soft, gentle music when the Jersey Girls appear.

This whole "let's have another investigation" farce is just a distraction. The Jersey Girls got their 9-11 Commission (headed by a former New Jersey Governor no less); if they want more let them hire private investigators; lord knows they can afford it.

They go into a lot of the CT stuff without doing the CD or Bumble Planes. For example, consider the bit at about 6:00 where they "ask" why the US military didn't stop any of the four planes. They say that the military was made aware at 8:38 of the first hijacking and that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 (of course that's Denier BS, the plane crashed at 10:03). But of course the military was actually notified of the last plane a couple minutes after it crashed. One of the Jersey Girls then chuckles "that's almost two hours." No, even using their times it's less than an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

So my read is that this film is dishonest as well, just not as openly dishonest as Loose Change.

ETA: Next they go into the supposedly instantaneous response to Payne Stewart's plane, apparently not realizing that military jets reached his plane an hour and twenty-one minutes after it was reported as not responding to air traffic controllers. Remember, these are their first arguments in the film, supposed to be their best and strongest. I'm going to add this to the Press for Truth thread as well.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
*snip*My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.
TAM
Click to expand...

Thank you, TAM. I really hope that the smart people in here get to this point. I also have this unanswered question about what really happend that day. That´s why everything else is senseless to me regarding the stupid theories out there. They change nothing but fading away from the truth... :(
 
Brainster said:
I've only watched the first 20 minutes or so. It does appear to be a non-conspiracy type video, but it's not called 9-11 Press for Truth by accident. Note particularly the creepy music whenever Bush is on the air, as compared to the soft, gentle music when the Jersey Girls appear.

This whole "let's have another investigation" farce is just a distraction. The Jersey Girls got their 9-11 Commission (headed by a former New Jersey Governor no less); if they want more let them hire private investigators; lord knows they can afford it.

They go into a lot of the CT stuff without doing the CD or Bumble Planes. For example, consider the bit at about 6:00 where they "ask" why the US military didn't stop any of the four planes. They say that the military was made aware at 8:38 of the first hijacking and that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 (of course that's Denier BS, the plane crashed at 10:03). But of course the military was actually notified of the last plane a couple minutes after it crashed. One of the Jersey Girls then chuckles "that's almost two hours." No, even using their times it's less than an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

So my read is that this film is dishonest as well, just not as openly dishonest as Loose Change.

ETA: Next they go into the supposedly instantaneous response to Payne Stewart's plane, apparently not realizing that military jets reached his plane an hour and twenty-one minutes after it was reported as not responding to air traffic controllers. Remember, these are their first arguments in the film, supposed to be their best and strongest. I'm going to add this to the Press for Truth thread as well.
Click to expand...


I agree there are definitely hints, overtones that they think something is up with the USG in terms of involvement. I think the creators played it smart, knowing that this documentary, to be taken truely seriously, and to avoid an "insta-debunk" would have to sit the fence, or at least be very vague in its indirect accusations. My hats off to the "smarts" of the creators for this.

I believe (don't quote me) that the initial version of this film, came out before the release of the NORAD/FAA tapes. I am not excusing their "criticism" of the timeline, but I think that part of the film is also early on, maybe even before the commission section, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that they do not go back to give "Kudos" to the commission for clearing it up.

I think Paul Thompson is very shreud, and should be taken quite seriously as a CTer, if that is what he is. He doesn't seem to associate himself much with the "wack" theories.

Overall, I would like to know more about the "Pakistani" connection, but I doubt we ever will...they are too much of a strategic allie to the USG. I mean look at the spin now that both are in the news with each other now.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
What do we know about this guy...

"Adnan el-Shukrijumah"

Apparently this guy could be about to unleash a nuclear WMD in the NYC/Washington areas. See this article for more...

TAM
Click to expand...
I can't comment on the article itself, since I must confess I didn't take time to read it thoroughly and follow-up its links.

But the site itself appears to be stronly anti-Islamic, with a sidebar advertisement for a book titled "The Truth About Muhammed" carrying the text, "The bloody life and vicious teachings of Muhammed, the founder of the world's most violent religion ..."

That alone raises alarm bells for me about the site's journalistic standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom