The Loose Change forum

[beachnut]

Hmm. What world do you live in beachnut?

Where one can calculate the energy in the WTC tower and see there is no need to make up a CD CT on 9/11. If you believe in LC videos, a course in physics may help you use your own brain and figure out LC is telling lies. (fact)

I couldn't agree with you more that facts are much much better than lies.

The you can save some time and avoid watching LC videos. (fact there are no facts to support the conclusions you find in LC. In fact Dylan says not much of anything does he.)

I'll apologize right now if I've told any lies.

Have you?

Good advice on using the brain to think. I'll remember that bonus tip as well.

I have observed most CTers fail to remember what you call a bonus tip.

LC is fiction? Hmm..I've yet to see a documentary that doesn't contain some fiction. Although unlike you, I've yet to see a documentary that was 100% fiction.

LC is a fictional talk on 9/11. Just basic lies. When you find some facts in LC video it will be a big deal. Please share that smoking gun of facts in LC videos when you find one.

I do know that if you want people to have an ounce of respect for what you post, making absolute general statements is not the way to go about it.

Let me be specific; I have watch the LC video and can find no facts in it to support any CT that any truth movmement supports.

What specific fact have you found?

I agree making up lies about 9/11 like LC videos do is the most disrespectful thing anyone can do. Supporting lies on 9/11 and making up lies is disrespectful. LC video to me is very disrespectful. If LC had any facts on 9/11 it would earn a Pulitzer Prize. So if you support LC video you are disrespectful for not having facts and you help tell lies.

Other than that welcome. But making up CT out of thin air is all the truth movement has so far. 5 years and the truth movement still has no story, no facts, and the big one is no Pulitzer Prize. Facts would turn the tide for the truth movement. But the truth movement uses squibs with no blood as proof of explosives with not noise but it is just air.

Air. Talk. Hearsay. What do you bring?

Are you a NORAD stood down? Sorry I was in the Air Force, we did not stand down. Are you a terrorist can't fly guy? Sorry I am a pilot, any kid could crash a 757/767 into a building.

Facts are what LC lacks. Most CT guys fall for talk as being proof. Why do people settle for the lies of the truth movement, as in LC.

 

[Miragememories]

Have you read Mark Roberts' LC guide? It really shows how LC is full of lies.

And noone has professionally refuted the LC guide yet either, to my knowledge.

Yes I have read it.

To me the message is what's critical.

Mark Roberts tends to get bogged down in minutae and flagrant bias rather than focusing on the important issues. As an editor, I'm compelled to always think about audience reaction. With regards to Mark, the audience isn't impressed by examples of obvious personal prejudice, and with regards to Dylan, the audience can think for themselves, and don't want a lot of someone else's speculation.

I get the impression that both Dylan Avery and Mark Roberts are more concerned with scoring ego points off each other and their followers and less concerned about the about overall quality of their presentations.

God I hope I don't get banned on LC for saying that.

MM

 

[LashL]

You should save copies of as much of it as you can before they find out and figure out a way to block you. If nothing else it would be quite interesting reading for the rest of us. Plus there may be some nuggets that could be spread over to the "not as privileged" troofers.

*edit* Wasn't there a program linked to somewhere on this board that basically did printscreen only would work for entire pages of message board threads and the like?

Yes, I posted a link to it on a thread here but I can't remember which thread

Anyway, the utility is called FastStone Screen Capture and it's great.

http://www.faststone.org/FSCaptureDetail.htm

 

[WildCat]

Yes I have read it.

To me the message is what's critical.

Mark Roberts tends to get bogged down in minutae and flagrant bias rather than focusing on the important issues. As an editor, I'm compelled to always think about audience reaction. With regards to Mark, the audience isn't impressed by examples of obvious personal prejudice, and with regards to Dylan, the audience can think for themselves, and don't want a lot of someone else's speculation.

So you found no errors?

 

[beachnut]

Mark Roberts is by no means squeeky clean in his counter documentaries. His unrestrained bias only serves to undermine his message.
MM

Any examples? Some facts? Which topics do you refer too.

You should listen to someone who told me:

I do know that if you want people to have an ounce of respect for what you post, making absolute general statements is not the way to go about it.

 

[Miragememories]

Hi MM

You would have to work very hard to get banned here

(p.s. I like the way you bold the ID of the person you address. It's courteous and I'll do the same from now on)

While you're around - there was a debate raging over there at LC regarding concrete dust at WTC. It wasn't at all clear what your position was. Do you believe it was reduced to powder or *not* reduced to powder? This relates closely to your posts last night about pulverisation. I never did see your definition of "pulverised". Perhaps I missed it?

Powder shmowder..not a fine detail I care to get into (no pun intended).

I personally feel and I have clearly stated at LC that the large volume of concrete dust and the relatively limited showing of large concrete debris suggested explosive pulverization more than it did gravity pulverization.

How do we prove this? I have no idea ...but it's my current opinion.

I look at the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 and see a central core volcanic like explosion.

I'm sure the majority here look at it and see a building following a natural collapse sequence after fire has crippled it's structural integrity.

To be quite honest, I hope you are right because I know what it means if I am right.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

So far you've said a lot about what you will not do here at JREF. Got any plans on what you will do? Wanna talk about anything specific?

Hmm.

Well ConspiRaider did you state what you were going to do when you joined JREF?

I have no idea what I'm going to do. I'm winging it.

My only goal in life is to become better informed and hopefully grow wiser.

No secret agendas here. If I like what you say I'll agree and compliment you. If I think it's BS and I'm feeling brave enough to defend that point of view, I'll post a reply saying so.

Other than that, I can only hope that the folks here treat me with the same respect I intend to show them.

MM

 

[uk_dave]

Mark Roberts tends to get bogged down in minutae and flagrant bias rather than focusing on the important issues.

Isn't a documentary supposed to go into the minutae? Otherwise it's just opinion, instead of facts.

Are there any of the 'truth' videos or papers which you feel present an unassailable fact based alternative account of 9/11?

 

[beachnut]

Powder shmowder..not a fine detail I care to get into (no pun intended).

I personally feel and I have clearly stated at LC that the large volume of concrete dust and the relatively limited showing of large concrete debris suggested explosive pulverization more than it did gravity pulverization.

MM

The energy release in the WTC towers was like 1000 500 pound bombs in each tower. Simple fact. This is why there was destruction. No need for explosives. Fact.

The dust in mostly wallboard and insulation. You know wall board, ceiling tiles, spray on fire proofing. There are tons of concrete debris at the WTC.

Go get a hammer and break up you walls made of wall board and then try breaking up your concrete patio. How much dust does the wall board make. Now take a hammer to your ceiling tiles in the basement.

You asked me:

Hmm. What world do you live in beachnut?

Good luck with your CT world that you live in.

 

[Miragememories]

Please feel free to post anything that is true in the LC video. I have found no facts and find LC videos to be complete fiction as Dylan orignally set out to do. Fiction. He even tells you the same. I started as fiction and is fiction now. A joke. Please help me find one fact in LC.

There are no smoking guns in LC yet; nor do I expect them ever. If you have one new smoking gun after the beam weapon by Judy Wood, let us hear it.

I see.

Well beachnut you make it perfectly clear that in your less than humble opinion, LC can be totally painted with a black brush.

It must be nice to feel so certain of yourself.

As a fallible human, my gut feeling is that your wrong and foolish to take such a dogmatic stance but that's your privilege and your welcome to it.

Whenever someone tells me something is all black, I know I'm a fool if I try and persuade them otherwise.

MM

 

[beachnut]

I see.

Well beachnut you make it perfectly clear that in your less than humble opinion, LC can be totally painted with a black brush.

It must be nice to feel so certain of yourself.

As a fallible human, my gut feeling is that your wrong and foolish to take such a dogmatic stance but that's your privilege and your welcome to it.

Whenever someone tells me something is all black, I know I'm a fool if I try and persuade them otherwise.

MM

Again this reminds me of your advice or statement:

I do know that if you want people to have an ounce of respect for what you post, making absolute general statements is not the way to go about it.

Does this mean there will be no facts about why LC is correct?

 

[Miragememories]

Be that as it may, you complained above when others referred to LC as "fiction," and remarked that other documentaries may have errors as well. But if you cannot be more precise about it, then this is nothing more than a form of equivocation.

In my personal opinion, Loose Change is a work of fiction, and moreover one that misleads its audience about its true nature. Now then, if you disagree with that assessment, I'd be curious to understand why.


Likewise, without support, this is what I would call an "unwarranted personal attack."

Has poster Gravy made errors in his "counter-documentaries?" What are they? And, if there are none, will you retract your statement?

I'm sorry R.Mackey, I wasn't aware that Mark Roberts was the first documentarian to create an error-free film. My humble apologies and I retract any suggestion that his releases have been anything less than perfect.

Regarding LC, I can be more precise but to do so properly, I'd have to review the latest release which alas I haven't done.

I'm sure it is flawed but you'll have to wait until I re-screen it to hear my critique of it. To use a blanket label and smear it as nothing but fiction is way too extreme. I feel statements like that reveal your personal prejudice and clear lack of of objectivity. Regardless of any disagreements I may have with Mark's creations, I wouldn't be so extreme as to judge them as 'fictional'.

MM

 

[scissorhands]

MM.
If you are here to defend LC then please open a debate about any single issue in it that you think is in anyway misunderstood.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Powder shmowder..not a fine detail I care to get into (no pun intended).

I personally feel and I have clearly stated at LC that the large volume of concrete dust and the relatively limited showing of large concrete debris suggested explosive pulverization more than it did gravity pulverization.

How do we prove this? I have no idea ...but it's my current opinion.

I look at the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 and see a central core volcanic like explosion.

(bolding mine)

Finally something specific.

Are you suggesting that the central core was packed with molten lava, and then erupted like a volcano via remote control?

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm sorry R.Mackey, I wasn't aware that Mark Roberts was the first documentarian to create an error-free film. My humble apologies and I retract any suggestion that his releases have been anything less than perfect.

That wasn't what you said. You said, and I quote,

Mark Roberts is by no means squeeky clean in his counter documentaries. His unrestrained bias only serves to undermine his message.

I asked you to back that up. You still have not. Now please, either do so or issue a proper retraction.

I'm sure it is flawed but you'll have to wait until I re-screen it to hear my critique of it. To use a blanket label and smear it as nothing but fiction is way too extreme. I feel statements like that reveal your personal prejudice and clear lack of of objectivity. Regardless of any disagreements I may have with Mark's creations, I wouldn't be so extreme as to judge them as 'fictional'.

They do nothing of the kind. You have seen, I am sure, plenty of expositions in text of the errors contained in "Loose Change". My statement is based upon that analysis, not personal prejudice or lack of objectivity.

As before, you are equivocating. Now, again, please back up your statements with evidence, or retract them. If you can show me how "Loose Change" is not fiction, or how the myriad errors we have found do not damage its thesis, then we will reconsider our opinion. But we will not do so on the basis of your prejudice.

 

[beachnut]

I'm sorry R.Mackey, I wasn't aware that Mark Roberts was the first documentarian to create an error-free film. My humble apologies and I retract any suggestion that his releases have been anything less than perfect.

Regarding LC, I can be more precise but to do so properly, I'd have to review the latest release which alas I haven't done.

I'm sure it is flawed but you'll have to wait until I re-screen it to hear my critique of it. To use a blanket label and smear it as nothing but fiction is way too extreme. I feel statements like that reveal your personal prejudice and clear lack of of objectivity. Regardless of any disagreements I may have with Mark's creations, I wouldn't be so extreme as to judge them as 'fictional'.

MM

You are a in a religion of 9/11 truth. You are blind by something and have no back ground in science or physics to make you capable of understanding energy or gravity. You fail to read about the subjects you actually make up stories about 9/11 using what, the stuff you could read about? Not facts.

You believe there was someone who placed silent explosives in the WTC. You believe this as other believe in a religion.

You are in a religion based on faith in lies that you and other truthers make up using your imagination. When will you drink the kool-aid? When are you going to go to the next level?

Learn some physics and more about CD. You could come up with better lies.

How come you are so funny! How come you are so ironic, you are in a ironically named group called truth with only lies to support you; you said it best!!!

Faith, whether it be in a religion, or in respected institutions, is still blind acceptance to ...

In your case fantasy stories! What new story do you have today?

 

[A W Smith]

Miragememories you were asked what errors did Mark Roberts present. You were asked what, if any, facts were in LC. You present vague generalizations about the way videos are "painted" but have not contested any points nor presented any facts about them. All I am hearing from you is a tap dance. Would you like some dancing shoes?

 

[GlennB]

Powder shmowder..not a fine detail I care to get into (no pun intended).

I personally feel and I have clearly stated at LC that the large volume of concrete dust and the relatively limited showing of large concrete debris suggested explosive pulverization more than it did gravity pulverization.

How do we prove this? I have no idea ...but it's my current opinion.

I look at the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 and see a central core volcanic like explosion.

I'm sure the majority here look at it and see a building following a natural collapse sequence after fire has crippled it's structural integrity.

To be quite honest, I hope you are right because I know what it means if I am right.

MM

Where does your information on "concrete dust" come from? This seems to be about the third time you've been asked this. I haven't seen you answer the question yet.

There were a number of studies of the lightweight airborne particles from the TT. As I understand it they were investigating the possibility of respiratory complications. They found a high %age of gypsum, asbestos, concrete derivatives, soot, etc. It's not a mystery. The figures are freely available.

The third highest %age by weight in the TT was gypsum drywall. Given the typical particulate sizes of gypsum vs. concrete found at any distance from GZ, this is what we see in the films and photos of dust clouds. Some gypsum, some fibrous material, some concrete powder, some soot....

BTW - what is your definition of "large concrete debris" ?
The size of sand particles?
Gravel?
Pebbles?
Bricks?
Bigger?

Please be clear. We need that definition in order to debate the presence of 'macro' concrete at GZ.

 

[tsig]

an absolute

I do know that if you want people to have an ounce of respect for what you post, making absolute general statements is not the way to go about it.

MM

Sounds to me like an absolute general statement.

 

[Miragememories]

First of all, welcome to the JREF forum MM.


I see this a lot from the truthers about Mark Roberts. I have yet to see a truther find a single error in any of his papers, just complaints about his tone. Have you found any errors?

eta: damn Mackey and his fast fingers...

I stand corrected. I am not prepared to detail any proof that Mark Roberts has ever made a factual error in any of his works.

His bias and conclusions on the other hand are another thing.

MM