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

[Gravy]

Important to keep in mind: we're not the ones accusing people of mass murder without a shred of evidence, while excusing the real murderers. My $0.02.

 

[beachnut]

From the radar analysis on all four planes.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_ Data_ Study_all _aircraft.pdf

Hmmmmmmmmmm
[/b]

Russell you will never find out how radars are used to estimate altitude, you did not even notice the raw data available at the NTSB on flight 77.

It has many points of estimated altitude but then you are not an engineer, or are you?

Engineers explain to Russell Doppler. Engineers explain to Russell multiple radar antenna and how they could be used to estimate a targets altitude.

For over 50 years radars have been used to calculate altitude of aircraft. Think that is before MODE C.

Bet you can not find it because you are missing the simple things. Your research is still shallow. You have grabbed the low fruit and declared victory and yet the game is still afoot, Sherlock Holmes would never declare victory with out the whole truth. You have come up short and you are hanging the wrong man over and over again.

Good luck, but as Chuck would say "NO JOY"

 

[60hzxtl]

Important to keep in mind: we're not the ones accusing people of mass murder without a shred of evidence, while excusing the real murderers. My $0.02.

Two Cents?

Sounds like Loose Change to me!

Or the true value of Loose Change!

 

[Housefly]

I will be honest and say many of my theories have been flawed along this path. I went from the typical no plane idea at the Pentagon to actually forensically being able to demonstrate it strongly which again has put me in the agent category.

The more I have researched the broader aspects of 9/11 and especially since my experience here, I am still very convinced of a conspiracy.

From the sounds of it you started off being convinced of a conspiracy. You will remain convinced until God himself comes down from the sky and tells you otherwise. And even then you'll challenge his technical expertise.

 

[Gravy]

Maybe you should try going back over there now, they seem quite reasonable...

Yes, I can hardly think of anything more reasonable than supporting Dylan Avery and Loose Change.

 

[T.A.M.]

The only person I have seen come over from LC and actually try to sanely, and rationally discuss anything is Russ, so why should we do them the honor of engaging in such conversation at that site, the site that to me, still needs to prove itself as a place for honest, uncensored debate and discussion.

last I checked you could not even view the posts without registering. So I can not decide whether I want to become a member via lurking. Not getting off to a good start...unless this part has changed.

TAM

 

[Moving On]

Now there's some good pub!

Bold emphasis mine.

Guess the Burlingame family isn't exactly on board as you claim, eh Russell?

I never indicated they were on board with the film.

Wendy burlingame (the daughter) has addressed me. She disagrees obviously, but I treat her father with respect as I do all victims and witnesses.

I said they were outraged at the treatment of their father by the USG.

Don't twist.

Q Ari, can you tell us -- you said that Andy Card called the Pentagon. Can you tell us who he called regarding Captain Burlingame? And also, you said he didn't make any request. But is the administration suggesting to the Army that it reverse its decision and -- because the family is quite angry, and allow the Captain to be buried in his own grave?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011211-5.html#CaptainBurlingame

 

[WildCat]

I never indicated they were on board with the film.

Wendy burlingame (the daughter) has addressed me. She disagrees obviously, but I treat her father with respect as I do all victims and witnesses.

I said they were outraged at the treatment of their father by the USG.

Don't twist.

Okay Russell, so then explain what in the hell that has to do w/ proving that 9/11 was an inside job - the purported purpose of LCFC. You brought up the Burlingame name in this thread - for what purpose? I'll give you a chance to explain, but it sure as hell seems like you're making a transparent attempt to associate the Burlingame name w/ the 9/11 CT movement.

 

[Moving On]

How about the outrage of the Burlingame family at the LC crew?



How does that make you feel Russell?

Sad. I understand that they are justified in that feeling as well.

The representative of the largest group of 9/11 families says that the official version of events is a fallacy and that the NORAD stand down and evidence of incendiary devices used to bring down the towers amount to government complicity in the attacks - a conclusion shared by half of the 9/11 families he represents.

Bill Doyle heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

Different people respond different ways.​

 

[CptColumbo]

Correct, and I admitted that - but they must have undergone radical change. Surely the fact that they have moved along means that they are going to meet you somewhere in the middle eventually.

That old flies/vinegar/jam business...

From what I've read they've settled down quite a bit. I think many of the more belligerant posters followed JDX, but I can't view his site to confirm this. I hope they are willing to meet us half-way, but it may IMO spell doom for them among their loyal followers. It seems any time they concede a point or admit there is not enough evidence to support a theory (like the "pod" business), they create a uproar on the forum and are accused of almost being baby killers. This movement may be out of their control now and they are being swept along, whether they want to be or not.

 

[Moving On]

Ok now please indicate how either of these articles show that LC has any viability as a theater release. As I said, I am viewing this strictly from the aspect of a distributor picking up the rights to LC for a general cinematic release. Neither article would encourage any studio to do so, if anything they would have the reverse effect.

Assume that you are not current on the possibilities of the final cut.

 

[beachnut]

Russell you will never find out how radars are used to estimate altitude, you did not even notice the raw data available at the NTSB on flight 77.

It has many points of estimated altitude but then you are not an engineer, or are you?

Engineers explain to Russell Doppler. Engineers explain to Russell multiple radar antenna and how they could be used to estimate a targets altitude.

For over 50 years radars have been used to calculate altitude of aircraft. Think that is before MODE C.

Bet you can not find it because you are missing the simple things. Your research is still shallow. You have grabbed the low fruit and declared victory and yet the game is still afoot, Sherlock Holmes would never declare victory with out the whole truth. You have come up short and you are hanging the wrong man over and over again.

Good luck, but as Chuck would say "NO JOY"

Wait RP gave me information that I am right! darn his web site is wrong, he is right, I am right, his web site is wrong.

What did I do wrong?

I told him his research was not very deep, but then he debunks his own pages. Guess his reseach is too deep.

I messed up Sorry Russell you web site is wrong but your ability to find the right stuff is good, you just ignore it, or do not understand it.

You got me.

 

[The Atheist]

Yes, I can hardly think of anything more reasonable than supporting Dylan Avery and Loose Change.

I didn't say you had to agree with, or support, them. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Doesn't the fact that they've dropped some of the loonier ideas suggest that they are actually able to accept evidence? To modify their views?

Look, I'm on the outside looking in, but they have clearly changed ground and Dylan Avery is just one person. The other ones there seem to be quite open to factual evidence and I would have thought that genuine, critical analysis - in layman terms - might even bring them closer to your own.

 

[Moving On]

Russell, please tell my how the USA Today article helps your cause. WildCat beat me in posting the very uncomplimentary statements the article makes about you 9/11 deniers. True, people who read these are learning about the Loose Change, but these articles completely debunk the film and conspiracy theorists with statements like:

People believe in conspiracy theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote," says sociologist Clifton Bryant of Virginia Tech University, who has made a study of "deviant logic" and behavior.
"We're always ready to believe something about which we know nothing," he says.

So the article says that conspiracy theorists are ready to believe things without adequate facts or understanding. These articles are written to trash Loose Change and conspiracy theorists in general. Why do you believe that such articles help your cause?

Please try and read the thread before you speak.

I di not say it helped the case.

I was responding a claim that the articles did not feature the film in a discussion about what caused the phenomenon of the film.

I have read all of those and many more word by word.

 

[Brainster]

Correction. Notice how you went totally ignored, leastwise by me. But now I guess the crying baby gets the bottle.

Your (and Avery's) premise is wrong. I would never call anyone a liar without evidence. I may not believe them, they may not have evidence to support their claims/beliefs, but that does not make them a liar. I'm sure Rodriquez did hear explosions in the basement. But what caused those explosions no one can assert with any authority. For this reason, any weight your movement gives his testimony is undue.

As far as the "Jersey Girls," what the heck are you guys talking about? I, and I believe most people, agree with them. I don't know of anyone who has called them a liar. I personally support them fully and hope they get what they seek.

They lied a few times in 9-11 Press for Truth. For instance near the very beginning one of the women says, ""That's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

But of course the most advance warning that NEADS had for any of the hijackings was 7 minutes, and that was for Flight 11.

Considering that 9-11 Press for Truth is all about another 9-11 Commission (preferably chaired by Alex Jones), I'm not too keen on them getting what they seek.

 

[The Atheist]

The only person I have seen come over from LC and actually try to sanely, and rationally discuss anything is Russ, so why should we do them the honor of engaging in such conversation at that site, the site that to me, still needs to prove itself as a place for honest, uncensored debate and discussion.

last I checked you could not even view the posts without registering. So I can not decide whether I want to become a member via lurking. Not getting off to a good start...unless this part has changed.

TAM

Maybe I need to read posts by more of the nutters!

Registration is indeed essential to read the forum, but it's no big deal - go and register and see for yourself. Alternatively, if there are questions you'd like to put, I'll put them for you.

 

[Moving On]

After they see their names in print they stop reading. Then they stop comprehending.

Reeeeealy!

I have read every critique on it.

That was part of the basis for my contributions on the new Pentagon section.

I love criticism,

 

[beachnut]

Sad. I understand that they are justified in that feeling as well.

the NORAD stand down and evidence of incendiary devices used to bring down the towers

Different people respond different ways.​

Do you have access to this evidence.

I was in the Air Force there was no stand down of NORAD. I flew the next day on business, as a military flight. NORAD never stands down. Where is evidence of this? How can they say that and insult every service person on duty that day.

I still have not seen any evidence of incendiary devices used by the government in the WTC.

Where did they get their information? I do not think they have any real evidence.

 

[60hzxtl]

I didn't say you had to agree with, or support, them. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Doesn't the fact that they've dropped some of the loonier ideas suggest that they are actually able to accept evidence? To modify their views?

Look, I'm on the outside looking in, but they have clearly changed ground and Dylan Avery is just one person. The other ones there seem to be quite open to factual evidence and I would have thought that genuine, critical analysis - in layman terms - might even bring them closer to your own.

That's Emily Littela that says "never mind" not Dylan Avery.

 

[The Atheist]

From what I've read they've settled down quite a bit. I think many of the more belligerant posters followed JDX, but I can't view his site to confirm this. I hope they are willing to meet us half-way, but it may IMO spell doom for them among their loyal followers. It seems any time they concede a point or admit there is not enough evidence to support a theory (like the "pod" business), they create a uproar on the forum and are accused of almost being baby killers. This movement may be out of their control now and they are being swept along, whether they want to be or not.

Can't be, otherwise, why would they have modified their views at all? If they just wanted the lunatic fringe to follow them, then the dumber the accusations, the better. As it stands right now, confusion seems to sum up the mood of LC forum rather than belligerence or arrogance about the whole 9/11 business.