The Loose Change forum

Coritani said:
Do I have to remove all my cookies, or just the relevant ones? I deleted all the ones relevant to the LC forum, but I still get the 'Not permitted to use this board'.

On the subject of getting areas banned, I wonder if anyone else in NZ is having problems accessing the forum?
Click to expand...
Read you Private Messages, Coritani. ;)
 
Firestone said:
Read you Private Messages, Coritani. ;)
Click to expand...

Legend.

I'm in Australia, and it's viewable to me. Also, Truth_sword appears in the Members list (whereas Wilma doesn't). I don't know what the problem is, Coritani.
Maybe you've been suspended - at the old forum I was "suspended for 3 months" and I was IP banned for 5 or 6 months till it closed - anyone else got any ideas?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad. I should be happy because I'm no longer looking at that pure stupidy at the LC forums, but then again the comedy value of the LC forums is huge. Quite the predicament!

Either way, accessing the LC forums isn't a problem anymore thanks to Firestone. Now, back onto the topic of the forums themselves, I'm shocked that the mods are actually condoning flaming in plain site. Normally they show their bias behind the scenes, but I suppose they don't care anymore. Well, at least Quest doesn't.

Edit: Good lord, Christophera is now posting on the "Why Wasnt This Found In Rubble?" thread. Heavens.
 
Last edited:
As for the 'asking questions' or 'pointing fingers' thing goes.

Will LC FC put the blame on the US government, or will he 'just ask questions?'

Surely the term 'Inside Job' implies just that...
So if any of them say that...they're saying it was the government, or some american group anyway.
 
eddyk said:
As for the 'asking questions' or 'pointing fingers' thing goes.

Will LC FC put the blame on the US government, or will he 'just ask questions?'

Surely the term 'Inside Job' implies just that...
So if any of them say that...they're saying it was the government, or some american group anyway.
Click to expand...

They could mention the Southpark episode
to give LC-FC a littlebit of credibility. :boxedin:
 
To give you an idea of the kind of logic I'm facing over there, here's a couple of different exchanges:

truther said:
Lets say - both buildings had just suffered structural failure as the official account states. Now, building 7 is obviously a different design to the twin towers and had different damage, naturally. However, why is WTCs 1 and 2 so drastically different in visual if they both just suffered the same fate : structural failure. This is something that doesnt make sense to me. I would imagine they would look different, yes. But i mean - THAT different?
Click to expand...
me said:
Actually, yes. The reason that they look so different is because of where the damage was and how the structure failed. WTC 7 looks more like a conventional implosive demolition because of how it failed - it's much more similar to what we're familiar with when we see buildings purposely imploded on TV. The structure failed at the bottom where there was a major load transfer truss between the newer WTC7 structure and the sub-station it was built over. When the support there went, gravity pulled the rest of the building down, from the inside-out. Of course, there are differences: the debris field wasn't nearly as carefully placed as you would like in a demo; also there were no visible or audible explosions from cutting charges.

I say looks like a CD, because that's the only way to describe it in figurative language. We don't have any other similar thing to which to compare it. But it's still just a figure of speech - a comparison - in this case, a simile. It's not literal. For instance, if I was trying to describe a Boeing 757 to you, I might say that it looked like a DC-10. That doesn't mean that I think that it IS a DC-10, I'm just using comparative language that I hope you can relate to to describe it. And, to someone who isn't an expert at identifying different types of planes, that's a pretty valid comparison.

To someone who is an expert, my comparison may seem innacurate because they're aware of the more nuanced differences between the two. I think that's the root of your misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
truther said:
You can honestly look at the collapses of the twin towers and really think that it was a case of floors falling vertically downwards on each other?

Hypothetically, see if the official story said they believed it was explosives... visually would you be convinced?
Or would you maintain your expertise and contend that is was truss sagging and structural failure?
Click to expand...

Bolding mine, there. I honestly don't know how you could draw that conclusion from what I wrote. I'm serious. No idea. I was answering that same poster's own question, to boot. Because they asked.

Here's another:

me said:
The whole purpose of looking into things - investigating - is to challenge your initial assumptions and attempt to prove them either correct or false. Therefore, it's not uncommon to have to "change the story". In fact, you should do it, if the story is proven false. If we didn't do that, we would still be teaching theories like the flat earth, the 4 elements, and man's inability to fly.
Click to expand...
truther said:
There was nothing to theorize. They'd already seen the exit hole. There was no nosecone sticking out of it.

If you were standing in front of an open door would you theorize that there was a gorilla standing there if there wasn't?
Click to expand...
me said:
I'm honestly confused by your reply. I don't know what point you are making, or even if you are making one. You are saying that they saw the hole and that there was no nose cone in it? Therefore there was nothing to explain it?

If I saw a hole in the wall of the gorilla pen at the zoo, and I knew that a gorilla had reportedly escaped earlier that day, I might theorize that the hole was made by the gorilla, even though I didn't see him at the hole.
Click to expand...
truther said:
I was going to say you have taken my words out of context, but I realized you've gone way beyond that. I never asked you anything about any hole in the wall of any gorilla pen. You just answered a hypothetical question I never asked. You just created your own hypothetical and answered it as if you were answering my question. How about answering the question I actually DID ask?
Click to expand...
me said:
Your analogy was not in any way analogous, so I substituted my own, which was more fitting. I'll try to use yours, though.

QUOTE If you were standing in front of an open door would you theorize that there was a gorilla standing there if there wasn't?

I WOULD theorize that, if there was a dead gorilla a few paces away and a bunch of animal control agents running about, and gorilla fist-marks on my door. I would theorize that there HAD been a gorilla at my door.

What would you theorize about the gorilla, or even the pentagon wall?
Click to expand...
truther said:
Had been? Reread the question. You seem to have a hard time comprehending.
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not really sure how to respond to this guy or his retarded analogy. I tried correcting it so that it was more relevant to the discussion in the thread, but that didn't work, so now I'm considering trying to 1-up him with irrelevant ones. I'm considereng asking him:

If a giant meteorite made entirely of diamond came crashing to earth and landed on your house, would you theorize there was no such thing as diamond?

If your bowl of vegetable soup got cold, would you theorize that the Yoda wasn't actually a Jedi, even though he was?

But I dunno, I'm kind of having writer's block this morning, not feeling all that ridiculous, so I'm open to suggestions.
 
Speaking of logic, I like this one.

In a thread about the "power down" of WTC 2:

Wartrac correctly observes:

Wartrac said:
Has there been more than just Ben Fountain and Scott Forbes that has come foward about the shutdowns? I keep hearing these names over and over. With the population of people working in the towers you would think there would be more people saying this.
Click to expand...

and gets this "logical" answer from westprog (surely not the westprog of this forum):

westprog said:
I think that PROOVES a conspiracy, if not why not more people talking about it?
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp
 
Firestone said:
Speaking of logic, I like this one.

In a thread about the "power down" of WTC 2:

Wartrac correctly observes:



and gets this "logical" answer from westprog (surely not the westprog of this forum):

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

11107451da7e781cb2.gif
There. Is. No. Hope.
111074527eb7759e48.gif
 
Oliver said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/11107451da7e781cb2.gif[/qimg] There. Is. No. Hope. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/111074527eb7759e48.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Relax, Oliver.

Watch a video of mud-wrestling match between Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp, or something ... ;)
 
Firestone said:
Relax, Oliver.

Watch a video of mud-wrestling match between Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp, or something ... ;)
Click to expand...

There must have been a reason for god to create women...
...to torture us innocent, hairy, beings... :p
 
Wow, I just got banned at LC boards, and I was doing my best to be both extremely civil and back up all of my posts with facts. I was told that as long as I followed the rules over there I would be ok. No explaination given at all, either.
 
Minadin said:
Wow, I just got banned at LC boards, and I was doing my best to be both extremely civil and back up all of my posts with facts. I was told that as long as I followed the rules over there I would be ok. No explaination given at all, either.
Click to expand...

They're paranoid little cowards. When faced with facts, they run.

I sent you a PM.
 
Minadin said:
Wow, I just got banned at LC boards, and I was doing my best to be both extremely civil and back up all of my posts with facts. I was told that as long as I followed the rules over there I would be ok. No explaination given at all, either.
Click to expand...

What was your last message over there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom