Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
brodski said:
although given the rules, I don't think that LC will be eligible to enter, though.
Click to expand...

He said LC was selected for a "special" screening, not an entry. They will be showing films that are not entered during this festival as well.
 
XXX said:
He said LC was selected for a "special" screening, not an entry. They will be showing films that are not entered during this festival as well.
Click to expand...
I suspect that all that means is that LTW will have paid for a screening, as many people do at film festivals, this is not an endorsement of the film by the Venice film festival. Even if it where, i don't think that pointing out the lies in loose change will do much, they will be showing many works of fiction ;)
That said, i think pointing out that the entire film is made up of stolen footage- which LTW have absolutely no right to use may prompt a swift withdrawal of the film. The Venice film festival staff may not be prepared to wade through a debunk of loose change (or may even decide that the loose change point of view deserves a platform, even if they disagree with that point of view) however they will be very interested in copyright matters.
 
brodski said:
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

looks like the excuses and recrimination have started...
Meacher will be first against the wall come the revolution
Click to expand...

From that blog...

During our second conversation I told you, that what I was seeking was 'of Churchillian proportions', requiring resolute bravery but that David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery (two people whose committment remains undiminished) and I would support you. In the final analysis, your courage deserted you.
Click to expand...

Churchillian proportions?! These guys are so [Rule8]ing full of themselves, aren't they?

And is this the same "undiminished commitment" with which Dylan stood up to the Naudet brothers?

Steve S.
 
Last edited:
Oh my God, that is hilarious, that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. The World Trade Center was hit by giant flying blobs! That settles it.
 
JamesB said:
Oh my God, that is hilarious, that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. The World Trade Center was hit by giant flying blobs! That settles it.
Click to expand...
Actually the WTC didn't really exist. It was a hologram, only the 1st 5 floors were real. The elevators didn't really go anywhere, and the view from the top floor restaurant was just a projection on a screen.

It's true. :)
 
No, he says on the thread that you can't mention holograms. You guys are breaking the rules!
 
JamesB said:
No, he says on the thread that you can't mention holograms. You guys are breaking the rules!
Click to expand...
He used to be known as "hologram" Holmgren.
He's very mentaly ill. He went nuts on Steven Jones when Jones didn't buy the no plane theory. But I think they have some sort of an agreement now.
 
LOL That was hilarious dub. The sad thing is that it is just about as accurate.
 
brodski said:
Sorry do you mean MP guy- i.e Meacher?
Sure, you can contact his assistant at [email protected]
several of us have already sent him gravy's debunk of loose change.
he decided to drop the loosers like a hot potato.
coincidence? :D
Click to expand...

Own up, when you say you've already sent him Gravy's debunk of Loose Change, you mean you've been issuing him with death threats, don't you. DON'T YOU! :boggled:
 
For example. Lets say the plane was real. It enters the building with no slowdown (my pixel by pixel analysis shows at most a 2% slowdown... well within statistical error of 0%). Amazing. This means that while the plane was entering, it was expending energy by breaking the walls AND expending energy by accelerating these impacted areas.

If that is the case, we must assume that the kinetic energy of the plane FAR exceeded that of the building. But wait a minute... if that was the case, why didn't the plane fly through to the other side like a bullet ? After all, if it lost 0 energy after travelling 75% of the way across the building, how could it lose all of it in the remaining 25%... twice in one day no less!
Click to expand...

OMG I missed this part. Could someone please explain how he was able to calculate these extremely precise measurements of acceleration from a 24 frame per second video footage of a plane crash?

And how exactly does a building standing still have kinetic energy in relation to a plane crashing into it? This could change the study of physics as we know it.
 
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6304&view=findpost&p=5294085

Can someone explain the passengers?

I can't really remember everything about it and people keep asking me "what about the phonecalls?"

I feel like a real wacko if I start talking about voice-changing devices.
Click to expand...

Don't you just HATE that? You start explaining your conspiracy theory to your buddies and maybe the hottie at the bar with the kickin little tramp-stamp, and you listen to yourself, and you think, "My god, what am I saying? Am I some kind of wacko?"

The answer to that question is, yes. If you are talking about voice-changing devices, you are a wacko.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom