Please check that Sentinal, you have the resources to do so.
Captain Patrick Brown was found intact.
Loose Change - Part II
- Thread starter Kiwiwriter
- Start date
- Status
Please check that Sentinal, you have the resources to do so.
Captain Patrick Brown was found intact.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah and, I mean... we've all seen UNDER SIEGE II, right ? If Seagal can survive THAT explosion, then everything's possible!!!1111!!
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
An open Message to Sentinal
Dear Sentinel;
I will hand it to you, you have managed to severely P.O.both DJLeacgy and Gravy, probably one of the few things those two will ever agree upon.
Reading your posts, I get the same feeling one has when he enters a conversation that has been underway for 10 minutes; you have a general idea what is going on, but need to figure out what has gone before. Usually future posts define this, but every one of your posts simply starts in the middle of a thought and carries on--and there is no seeming conection to them to link up in my head.
Now, I am not the smartest person here (but I'm pretty smart nonetheless), and if I can't fathom where you are going, I doubt that many others can.
So please, that I at least can figure from what perspective you are coming from, can you start at the beginning (CT or pretty much accepting the NIST report or some other Point of View?) and what you are trying to present here?
Because I really do not understand-and I'd at least like to make an attempt to do so.
Thoughtfully yours, Hutch
Dear Sentinel;
I will hand it to you, you have managed to severely P.O.both DJLeacgy and Gravy, probably one of the few things those two will ever agree upon.
Reading your posts, I get the same feeling one has when he enters a conversation that has been underway for 10 minutes; you have a general idea what is going on, but need to figure out what has gone before. Usually future posts define this, but every one of your posts simply starts in the middle of a thought and carries on--and there is no seeming conection to them to link up in my head.
Now, I am not the smartest person here (but I'm pretty smart nonetheless), and if I can't fathom where you are going, I doubt that many others can.
So please, that I at least can figure from what perspective you are coming from, can you start at the beginning (CT or pretty much accepting the NIST report or some other Point of View?) and what you are trying to present here?
Because I really do not understand-and I'd at least like to make an attempt to do so.
Thoughtfully yours, Hutch
Last edited:
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
I have a hypothesis about this. Skeptics go present evidence of why they're wrong, and in order to combat this, they ban the skeptics. But the damage has been done. Doubt has been introduced. You can see this in the way Loose Change itself is being presented. They've pretty much abandoned it as a source of facts or substantial information, and hold it up merely as something that gets people asking questions.
Since the skeptics have made certain arguments untenable and poked inconvenient and obvious holes in their overall theories, they must repair the damage with ever more convoluted speculation. The faster they ban the skeptics, the faster these ideas morph and spread, having ever fewer people there to keep them in check. They're going to choke on their own tangle of speculation.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.
Thing is, there are two basic modes of thought over there; those that think the aircraft hit just like the pictures showed, but that the Government is covering up something about it and that the report has too many holes, and those who believe the whole thing was an elaborate hoax and Government run "hit" (I won't even try to divide all the subcategories of the latter, from the -300 767 to the CD of WTC 7 to the no-757 into the Pentagon to...well, they get even wilder than that.
It appears the moderates (those who think the Government is covering up something, but that the basics (Arab terrorists crashed 4 planes) is accurate) are being driven off by those who want to believe in a more radical answer. It is not unknown, the more radical the interpertation, the more they tend to be fanatical in their belief--IMHO. And radicals often drive the more thoughful moderates out--see almost any revolution from the French to the Russian--the one saving grace of the USA was our moderates got control and made it stick--I honor Thomas Paine, but I'm rather glad he didn't put our government together.
So I tend to agree that LC may be on a death spiral, much like the French Revolution, of eating its' own--and it might well have been our doing by upsetting the applecart.
Naughty of us...
Last edited:
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Thanks, Bob. He doesn't believe you (not surprisingly).
Now, would you please post this video of WTC7 burning in this thread?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2012&view=findpost&p=5183142
They are coming to a consensus that the still photo in the NIST report was Photoshopped.
I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.
Thing is, there are two basic modes of thought over there; those that think the aircraft hit just like the pictures showed, but that the Government is covering up something about it and that the report has too many holes, and those who believe the whole thing was an elaborate hoax and Government run "hit" (I won't even try to divide all the subcategories of the latter, from the -300 767 to the CD of WTC 7 to the no-757 into the Pentagon to...well, they get even wilder than that.
It appears the moderates (those who think the Government is covering up something, but that the basics (Arab terrorists crashed 4 planes) is accurate) are being driven off by those who want to believe in a more radical answer. It is not unknown, the more radical the interpertation, the more they tend to be fanatical in their belief--IMHO. And radicals often drive the more thoughful moderates out--see almost any revolution from the French to the Russian--the one saving grace of the USA was our moderates got control and made it stick--I honor Thomas Paine, but I'm rather glad he didn't put our government together.
So I tend to agree that LC may be on a death spiral, much like the French Revolution, of eating its' own--and it might well have been our doing by upsetting the applecart.
Naughty of us...
I wonder if my wanton sockpuppetry will force them into a paranoid purge of all new accounts?
"Photoshop CS wasn't out in 2001."
No but Photoshop 6 was. Idiot.
They can't even get their conspiracies right.
Everyone knows the globalists use the gimp.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Sure, what video?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Ok, It won't work for me. What should I say to get the point across?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
What makes it saddest is, WTC7 is supposed to be their smoking gun. Yet they're only aware of the cherry-picked evidence from the CT "documentaries". They're right about one thing--it was smoking--but that's the part they don't believe.
dubfan
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 452
Re: the relative lack of pictures of the south side of WTC7:
Wouldn't access to the south side of tower 7 have been blocked by all the rubble from WTC 1 & 2 that had just collapsed?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
It didn't work for me until I installed XP Codec Pack-- http://www.xpcodecpack.com/
But if you don't want to do that, it basically shows a video clip, from about the same angle as that photo they're claiming is photoshopped, of smoke pouring out of the south side of WTC 7, top to bottom.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Well I've got about a half dozen. It's hard to remember which "voice" I'm supposed to use in a given post.
That and the zone set up around 7, BECAUSE The were AFRAID it was going to collapse.
There was serious concern that day that thought the Millennium Hotel was going to come down, and engineers (whooooooowhooo! not the train kind - ) were checking it with transits because they were convinced it was tilting. - It was still standing yesterday when I went by it. . .
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,396
Here's a nice set of photos to show that it's very possible for a 757 travelling at high speed to punch through reenforced concrete. Figure this shovel was travelling much slower and the concrete was thicker, being horizontal, not a verticle sheet.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/hoecrash.asp
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/hoecrash.asp
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
Don't forget about this picture, it goes very well with that other one in that you can see the same other landmarks in it, but from a slightly different angle...
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_wtc7_smoke_d.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_wtc7_smoke_d.jpg
- Status