LCFC - Coming soon to a cinema near you...

[chipmunk stew]

You can judge it how you want.

After radio shows I get server logs sometimes and the listeners defined by detailed server identifications office by office are very interesting.

One of the Special Agents that detained us in DC thought my site was "interesting".

Who knows?

The FBI wouldn't show up as US Military.

If there was a program in place to spy on your activities, wouldn't the hits show up as noise in the "Unresolved/Unknown" group, the "Commercial" or "Network" groups, or the country groups?

I know it's fun to play cloak and dagger games. But at the most, there's a small gov't department somewhere that we pay to be paranoid that is aware of you (along with many other fringe whackjobs) and that wants to make sure that your plans to visit the capitol don't include rifles or explosive devices.

 

[Qubit]

Is this the same South Park that had a movie containing the Devil performing homosexual acts to Sadam Hussein?

Anyway, it seems Dylan's motives are quite clear by his actoins. It was duly noted by most of the people on the LC Forum that he was more concerned over the South Park episode than he was with the state of his own forum. His agenda appears quite clear. I'm sure that Avery will do whatever it takes to gain fame and fortune and in the end, leave all "truthers" out in the cold.

 

[60hzxtl]

Is this the same South Park that had a movie containing the Devil performing homosexual acts to Sadam Hussein?

Anyway, it seems Dylan's motives are quite clear by his actoins. It was duly noted by most of the people on the LC Forum that he was more concerned over the South Park episode than he was with the state of his own forum. His agenda appears quite clear. I'm sure that Avery will do whatever it takes to gain fame and fortune and in the end, leave all "truthers" out in the cold.

Reeeeeaaalllly?

 

[realitybites]

Questions: Would hits from within the Pentagon show up as military? Aren't there also a good number of civilians that work there?

 

[Moving On]

It seems that you favor a series of jumping to conclusions, making claims, removing the errors, jumping to conclusions, making claims, removing the errors, etc as opposed to real research and releasing a report only when a conclusion has been released.

Interesting.

I favor progressive investigation just like the USG.

Version 1 FEMA WTC 7 - The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the façade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion. (Chapter 5 - page 5-31)

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Version 2 NIST - This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Final Cut NIST - ?????????

 

[Moving On]

there is always a story for idiots who disrespect others and lie for prophet and sheer stupidity -

you guys are in the category with the following

serial killers
pedophiles
OJ
Charlie Sheen when he shows his IQ
truth movement has become McCarthyism of dolts

LCFC - fictional fraud, when will you have the strength to reveal it to others, when will you expose the fraud of your own mind

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is a well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#5

Thank you for taking the time to share that!

 

[beachnut]

Here is some actual data you can look at instead of making stuff up. This is where the interests in 9/11 lie. See number 13 - frequently the US Military is in the top ten. I also know which pages get hit and what the greatest concerns seem to be. I'll keep that a secret for now since I use them as a barometer for what to look into harder. Hint it has to do with the false documentation the USG provided on a particular topic.

You guys have NO idea what goes on behind the scenes. I receive encrypted, anonymous emails with both threats and encouragement to continue on. Sometimes I get inside tips!

I see CT, I see it everywhere, you seem kind of funny, tracking your hits, you are just a CT guy.

after studying your posts for days, this is the short review, sorry

but you are nuts on CT stuff, shallow research, and you are now a paid consultant for the most disrespectful fraud. LCFC

 

[chipmunk stew]

I favor progressive investigation just like the USG.

Final Cut NIST - ?????????

I wasn't aware that Dylan & co. presented the first two videos as drafts and solicited public feedback to be incorporated into the final version.

I was also not aware that they made it clear where their draft versions were incomplete and required further work.

I was also not aware that they presented their plans for how they were going to go about conducting this further work.

 

[Moving On]

The FBI wouldn't show up as US Military.

If there was a program in place to spy on your activities, wouldn't the hits show up as noise in the "Unresolved/Unknown" group, the "Commercial" or "Network" groups, or the country groups?

I know it's fun to play cloak and dagger games. But at the most, there's a small gov't department somewhere that we pay to be paranoid that is aware of you (along with many other fringe whackjobs) and that wants to make sure that your plans to visit the capitol don't include rifles or explosive devices.

Anybody who didn't want to show up - wouldn't.

I have given you first hand accounts of my personal experience.

Yes I get lots of nuts too - but I have talked with MANY people on the inside of the official story on the phone and in person and you know not of what it is you speak.

No JREF spin will work here because this is first hand.

 

[steve s]

According to the Loose Chang Blog, the movie will be in theathers in 2007.

I seem to recall Dylan assuring his minions that it was a "done deal" that LC would be shown before the British parliament. We know how much that guarantee was worth.

Steve S.

 

[Moving On]

I see CT, I see it everywhere, you seem kind of funny, tracking your hits, you are just a CT guy.

after studying your posts for days, this is the short review, sorry

but you are nuts on CT stuff, shallow research, and you are now a paid consultant for the most disrespectful fraud. LCFC

Please try to stay in the realm of your direct knowledge.

 

[Donal]

Actually, russ, if its just the voices in your head, its first person

 

[60hzxtl]

I seem to recall Dylan assuring his minions that it was a "done deal" that LC would be shown before the British parliament. We know how much that guarantee was worth.

Steve S.

No, no, no.

Dylan lit up a Parliment, exhaled a cloud of smoke and declared it a 'done deal'.

(just before declaring a "Do Over!")

 

[Moving On]

Please try to stay in the realm of your direct knowledge.

I propose the 9/11 Commission Report will end up being the most disrespectful fraud.

Especially the comic book version.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/comic.html

 

[VespaGuy]

I wasn't aware that Dylan & co. presented the first two videos as drafts and solicited public feedback to be incorporated into the final version.

I was also not aware that they made it clear where their draft versions were incomplete and required further work.

I was also not aware that they presented their plans for how they were going to go about conducting this further work.

You beat me to it, chipmunk.

The fact that Russell thinks that Dylan's do-overs have any similarity to the NIST report and subsequent follow up of WTC7 is telling.

 

[Moving On]

Actually, russ, if its just the voices in your head, its first person

Passed the military psych with security clearance, and the SFD psych too to be trusted with human life.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Anybody who didn't want to show up - wouldn't.

I have given you first hand accounts of my personal experience.

Yes I get lots of nuts too - but I have talked with MANY people on the inside of the official story on the phone and in person and you know not of what it is you speak.

No JREF spin will work here because this is first hand.

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here. You presented this chart after I said you couldn't make assumptions about the trends of people's conclusions about 9/11 based on your site visits.

Did the chart have anything to do with that, or were you switching the topic to how much interest the military has taken into your activities?

Are these ideas somehow related?

 

[Moving On]

You beat me to it, chipmunk.

The fact that Russell thinks that Dylan's do-overs have any similarity to the NIST report and subsequent follow up of WTC7 is telling.

Did you say NIST or FEMA?

Version 1 FEMA WTC 7 - The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2, which showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially "peeled" outward. The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the façade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion. (Chapter 5 - page 5-31)

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

 

[steve s]

Then when you cannot debunk it you will weep.

I predict that LC:FC will be so vague and ambiguous that there won't be any specifics to debunk. Just a bunch of interviews with wackos ranting against the gubmint.

Steve S.

 

[tsig]

When I arrived at this site my working hypothesis was that you were professional CIA disinfo artists.

This conversation has shown me it is something much less exciting, you are all simply not that bright.

Talking to me again Jessica. Yes sometimes I'm not too bright, the fact that you are reading this is proof.

If you are at this site and everyone of the posters here are CIA, You should check your drop for the check.

I know you love DA, but I thank you for a word.