Loose Change - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
chipmunk stew said:
Jon Ronson's documentary of David Icke's trip to Canada is illustrative of how not to counter a conspiracist:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2912878405399014351&q=david+icke+lizards+jews+ronson

The moral of the story: Make no attempt to limit their exposure. Stick to their claims.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Efforts to silence viewpoints you disagree with are every bit as offensive as Icke's nuttery. I was astounded that the people organizing the pie-throwing didn't seem to get it. The reptilian costumes were a great idea ruined by a bad one--talk about the turd in the punchbowl!
 
JamesB said:
The fed is secretly involved in their illuminati/jewish bankers/bohemian grove conspiracy theories in how a secret cabal runs the world. The most amusing one I saw was when someone pointed out (correctly) that the fed holds a couple of hundred billion dollars in treasuries. The fed uses this to regulate money supply and keep inflation in check (called the Federal Open Market Committee). It is true, being the central bank, they essentially create money by buying and selling bonds.

Anyway this Looser insisted that these secret banking cabals just create all the money they want to buy bonds and then pocket the billions in interest.

No. If they did this inflation would skyrocket and Ben Bernanke would be called in front of the Senate rather harshly. They maintain the money supply in keeping with the principles of the fed, which are economic growth and low inflation, any interest paid on the bonds, in excess of the cost of running the fed, is refunded to the US treasury, to the tune of tens of billions a year.

OK, that is the end of my finance lecture for today. For hot stock tips, please send a check or money order for $99.95 to...
Click to expand...

Is this a bad time to mention that I once ran for elective office under the banner of the Social Credit Party of Alberta? ;)
 
I thought I would post one of Jones newer papers here

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf


This one is full of all kinds of wild claims.
He now seems to support the no plane at the Pentagon.

One claim I've seen before is about the bridge.
He states that a bridge didn't melt reported by CBS news where there was a large fuel spill.

Ok so then I look up the article from cbsnews
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/26/national/main608802.shtml
"Northbound Traffic Resumes At Site Of Melted Bridge"

Northbound lanes reopened Sunday on a stretch of one of the nation's busiest highways, three days after a fire from a wrecked tanker truck partially melted an overpass.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...s+deputy+fire+chief.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Another article....
It was such an intense heat that it melted the bridge,'' said Wallace Thomas, Bridgeport's deputy fire chief. ``Once it sagged, it made a pool of burning fuel oil.''

Hmm,... sagging, pooling...claims of melted steel,....where have I heard that before?
 
Kent1 said:
I thought I would post one of Jones newer papers here

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/Jones_ppt/LAJun24_Jones.pdf
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've perused that rambling wreck of a presentation. Like the Loosers, the more Jones speaks out, the less credibility he has. Here's one example. He cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite:
Jones:
Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...
Click to expand...
What's the real story?
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/st...ategory=SEP11&BCCode=SEP11&newsdate=7/15/2006
Click to expand...
What a hideous fraud Jones is.
 
Gravy said:
Yeah, I've perused that rambling wreck of a presentation. Like the Loosers, the more Jones speaks out, the less credibility he has. Here's one example. He cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite:
Jones:

What's the real story?

What a hideous fraud Jones is.
Click to expand...

Well he's having trouble with his sulfer, considering there are much more obvious sources, so he has to move on to something else. I wonder if he's figured out that bowing floors can hold pooling metal yet.

Cause according to Jones this can't happen. LOL!!!
From Jones....
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability. "

The line before it is equally stupid

"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. "

But in his own paper it says that 1000C is possible. Twice, in Section 11 and 12. In fact NIST tests showed 1100C was likely and many other tests have shown that hydrocarbon fires can get hotter. Not to mention the fact that not all of the building had dark-smoke.

This guy is painting himself into a corner.
I don't know if he's doing this on purpose or a combination of the two. (Believes but doesn't care)
He can't be this dumb. He recommends we start gathering water and getting ready for some sort of civil war.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Yeah, I've perused that rambling wreck of a presentation. Like the Loosers, the more Jones speaks out, the less credibility he has. Here's one example. He cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite:
Jones:

What's the real story?

What a hideous fraud Jones is.
Click to expand...

This guy cracks me up.

Can you imagine Professor Steven Jones CSI:

"Dr. Jones, we found a victim washed up on the beach, drowned, with salt water in his lungs"

"Hmm, that can only mean one thing. Check the lobster tanks in all the seafood restaurants in the area. He was obviously drowned there and dumped on the beach."
 
National Geographic Channel, right now. Demolishing Busch Stadium w/ wrecking balls. Watch how the concrete collapses amid a cloud of dust, no explosives used at all. And it doesn't fall nearly as far as the WTC.
 
JamesB said:
This guy cracks me up.

Can you imagine Professor Steven Jones CSI:

"Dr. Jones, we found a victim washed up on the beach, drowned, with salt water in his lungs"

"Hmm, that can only mean one thing. Check the lobster tanks in all the seafood restaurants in the area. He was obviously drowned there and dumped on the beach."
Click to expand...
Did you see that he uses the "process of transformation...new Pearl Harbor" quote.
He also uses the put options and.......Judy (cause buildings are like trees) Wood.
Bah ha ha ha....
 
Anyone want to read Jones first draft?


http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones.htm

He drops concrete blocks....

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. :jaw-dropp

He had to drop a block to figure that out that it doesn't pulverize???
And this guy teaches what?

Or this...
Essentially none of these science-based considerations
is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this
subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M.
Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.)
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Anyone want to read Jones first draft?


http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones.htm

He drops concrete blocks....

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. :jaw-dropp

He had to drop a block to figure that out that it doesn't pulverize???
And this guy teaches what?

Or this...
Essentially none of these science-based considerations
is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this
subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M.
Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.)
Click to expand...

OMG

This pathetic fool has completely lost his mind, if he ever had one to begin with. Before this, I had marginally more respect for Jones than Judy Wood and the chicken-wire-and-cup-o-kerosene guy...but not anymore.
 
Kent1 said:
Anyone want to read Jones first draft?


http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones.htm

He drops concrete blocks....

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking"
theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately
12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the
WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are
supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a
concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete
floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed
during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own
experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself,
is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off
the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx.
100-micron powder as observed. :jaw-dropp

B]
Click to expand...
Where in the heck did this guy get a Physics PhD?

How does his thermite/thermate account for pulverized concrete anyways? Its an incendiary, correct. So, he thinks explosives were used in addition to Thermate/ite just to pulverize concrete for no apparent reason other than to give a few internet detectives a "smoking gun" to find?
 
Gravy said:
To be fair, he's not a young guy, and I'm sure it's been a long time since he took basic physics.
Click to expand...

The punk is even lying in his slides. Look at page 98:

"The process of transformation, [since] it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
Click to expand...

But that is not what the quote says. The original quote is:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

He just uses the brackets to change the meaning of the quote! Yeah, that is real academic research!
 
JamesB said:
The punk is even lying in his slides. Look at page 98:



But that is not what the quote says. The original quote is:



He just uses the brackets to change the meaning of the quote! Yeah, that is real academic research!
Click to expand...

He has a habit of doing that crap. He re-writes his sources.
He did that with FEMA, with Manning. He also used a doctored photo once where he (or someone else) cranked up the contrast....then stated how the white blobs were evidence of thermite.
He fixed it later after he got caught...but here are the photos

Jones version with "white blobs":
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=1846350
Original
http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spirewtc1original1200x16009as.jpg
 
Last edited:
JamesB said:
He just uses the brackets to change the meaning of the quote! Yeah, that is real academic research!
Click to expand...

There was a game show like that called 'Blankety Blanks', where the host took a quote and replaced some of the words with Blanks. The contestants had to come up with funny phrases.

For instance they might have taken your quote and turned it into:

He just uses the [BLANK] to change the [BLANK] of the [BLANK]! Yeah, that is real [BLANK] [BLANK]!

Quite a funny concept, but not academically rigorous.
 
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