Loose Change - Part II

[NobbyNobbs]

Shoot. Somebody on one of these threads posted, as their 1st or 2nd post, a long discussion of the force it takes to get something to fall. They talked about using force as money in a bank, etc. I really, REALLY wanted to respond to it, but now I can't find the post.

Most of what I wanted to say had to do with how poorly that person understands physics, but in the interest of education, I'd like to do it point by point. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find the post?

 

[Pardalis]

Landru, this is great news! If only you could see the smile on my face right now... I'm busting open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale I have saved for special occasions only!

I can imagine the scene! LOL

 

[Mutton-Head]

I hear all of your arguments, and I do understand them.

I feel I am not stating an argument from incredulity. It is an argument from experience. If I saw a bunch of would fall from the sky, and land in the form of a house, I would say that that was not possible. Something else contributed to the wood forming into a house. Now I know that this is an exaggeration, (although to be fair, it is much less of an exaggeration than giant purple salamanders. Boy, talk about hyperbole! At least I stayed away from imaginary amphibians.)

In any case…

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

Stacey Loiseaux of the Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the world's premier experts in the field, calls WTC CD theories "ludicrous."

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Remember people, you are all saying that you can easily implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Even if they are big fires. You can't implode a building in this manner. Controlled Demolition will further prove my point by never ever employing this much easier and cheaper procedure. And remember, it really doesn’t matter how many, or where you cut those steel supports on upper floors. It happened on WTC1 and WTC2, and the damage was very different on each building. Yet the collapse was still completely symmetrical. Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. This is not incredulity. It is sound reasoning.
Remember, it’s not just the fact that an expert says something. Is their reasoning sound? Talk is cheep. If Controlled Demolitions uses the “cut and burn” method to implode buildings in the future, then I will admit that I am wrong on this point.


911myths.com is full of errors. They use the L’Ambience Plaza. I already showed that was a totally different kind of structure. With “temporary supports” no less.

 

[Pardalis]

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

What is your experience with CD specifically? Is it first-hand?

Sorry if I missed it if you already described your experience in some other post.

 

[Gravy]

re CDI statement:
They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.

Just letting you know that they have also stated they are quite willing to sue for libel on this matter to protect their reputation.

If you have evidence that they are lying, please present it now. Not beliefs, evidence.

This is really getting tiresome.

 

[Mutton-Head]

But perhaps we are at an impasse…..

No, I haven't reached any conclusions. These aren't conclusions, they're theory. These are details, evidence, not conclusions. Yes I do believe there were more conspirators involved. But this is not a conviction. I’m not a jury. It’s an opinion. It would be more of an indictment. Or, more technically, a call for an indictment. A jury can then decide on conviction or not.

The NIST report is full of omissions. Maybe they will fill those holes. If they don’t, I think it is up to others to try to fill them. It is a government by the people. No, I don’t think everything in government is a huge nefarious conspiracy. This is the only one I’ve ever really felt compelled to investigate.

And I will continue. If I find anything I think to be significant, I will let everybody know.

 

[Pardalis]

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.

How can you say that? Are you a telepath?

 

[WildCat]

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Remember people, you are all saying that you can easily implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires. Even if they are big fires. You can't implode a building in this manner.

You absolutely can demolish a building in this manner! Problem is, the EPA would object to the massive amounts of air pollution involved, and the neighboring property owners would be more than a little miffed at their property being destroyed. After all, the WTC collapses obliterated the entire block and other massive buildings were destroyed in the process! Just check out these pics! Kind of blows the whole "fell in its own footprint" claim all to hell, don't it?

 

[Gravy]

Shoot. Somebody on one of these threads posted, as their 1st or 2nd post, a long discussion of the force it takes to get something to fall. They talked about using force as money in a bank, etc. I really, REALLY wanted to respond to it, but now I can't find the post.

That was in one of Mutton-Head's first posts.

 

[Landru]

Yes, Thaks, Landru. I'm off to buy some beer myself!

You and Wildcat have a few for me as well.

It's fascinating watching a whole new CT plot develop right before your eyes. Now the Naudets are in on it too...

 

[Gravy]

Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

You are correct sir! And you have officially entered "geggy country," where irrelevance is king and beliefs trump evidence and logic every time!

 

[Pardalis]

It would be more of an indictment. Or, more technically, a call for an indictment. A jury can then decide on conviction or not.

For an indictment, you got to have somekind of physical proof, like sperm on a robe.

 

[Gravy]

You and Wildcat have a few for me as well.

It's fascinating watching a whole new CT plot develop right before your eyes. Now the Naudets are in on it too...

Just waiting there for that jet to hit...then slyly risking their lives to make it look like they didn't know what was about to happen! Sneaky French!

 

[Pardalis]

Sneaky French!

Hey!

 

[Gravy]

In one of the funniest LC posts yet, "Left-Wing Humanist" advocates harassing the law firm that sent Avery the copyright infringement notice:

What about bombardin FGKS and Lisa Davis with mails of malcontence?? NOT threats or bad personal attacks like "You f*cking bitch, i hate u, u f*cking animal, ima slit your throat"... but with a slightly more humble approach, and like appealing to thier conscience ... Might not have an effect, but might have, if there is a massive amount of mail... Might make her insomniac and reduce her skills

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4820459

 

[Brainster]

But perhaps we are at an impasse…..

No, I haven't reached any conclusions. These aren't conclusions, they're theory. These are details, evidence, not conclusions. Yes I do believe there were more conspirators involved. But this is not a conviction. I’m not a jury. It’s an opinion. It would be more of an indictment. Or, more technically, a call for an indictment. A jury can then decide on conviction or not.

Let me guess, you're not a lawyer? Who are you indicting? PNAC? Larry Silverstein? Marvin Bush? Bushco?

 

[Gravy]

Hey!

I didn't say "Sneaky French-Canadians." As we all know, it's hard to be sneaky when you're drunk.

 

[WildCat]

I didn't say "Sneaky French-Canadians." As we all know, it's hard to be sneaky when you're drunk.

Especially when you're wearing those striped shirts and berets they all wear...

 

[dubfan]

You know, you just can't write comedy this good.

I was talking to a friend and he said the Naudet Bros. are Freemasons, anyone else hear that?

 

[Pardalis]

I didn't say "Sneaky French-Canadians." As we all know, it's hard to be sneaky when you're drunk.

LOL

I'm not much of a drinker myself, wich makes me kind of an oddity in Québec. But I do swear alot, I guess it balances out.