Loose Change - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave1001 said:
The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, and as part of that their claim that fires have burned significantly longer, and over a significantly greater number of floors, in the recent past.
Click to expand...
Those buildings did not have two passenger jets slam into them at 490 and 530 MPH, weakening their structural supports and blowing the fireproofing off of the columns and beams.

The second strongest point I thought is that it would be extremely difficult to fly a large passenger jet plane into the Pentagon, that it would make a significantly larger hole than it did, and that we would have significantly more publicly available video and photographic evidence of the large passenger plane flying into the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
The hole in the outer ring was 75' wide, much bigger than the 16' figure presented in Loose Change. The Pentagon did release the footage from the security gate camera which showed the crash of the plane. You cannot clearly see the jet because of it's high speed and the low resolution of the camera, but it shows the crash. Why there aren't other tapes of it: The Pentagon is mainly guarded by live security, not by cameras. There were no other cameras at the Pentagon that could have captured the crash.
 
brumsen said:
Well, surely one may be forced to accept things while one denounces them at the same time as unacceptable? Unacceptable and illegal are obviously not the same thing.

I was surprised to see a comment here saying in effect "oh well it's hardly a death threat so it's OK"; I think it is not OK. Barrett is right to protest against it. And so should others.
Click to expand...

To give you some context for my initial comment, Barrett and others have been claiming that O'Reilly had threatened his life. This struck me as extremely unlikely, and so it proved. That was why I felt the comment was mild--compared to what had been claimed. Like I said, typical of loudmouth O'Reilly. But it's an abstraction--more like saying "in my grandpappy's time Barrett would have been taken out and horsewhipped", than "somebody oughta kill that idiot Barrett". Stupid and not moving the discussion forward, certainly. But it's pretty weak beer as a threat.
 
Brainster said:
To give you some context for my initial comment, Barrett and others have been claiming that O'Reilly had threatened his life. This struck me as extremely unlikely, and so it proved. That was why I felt the comment was mild--compared to what had been claimed. Like I said, typical of loudmouth O'Reilly. But it's an abstraction--more like saying "in my grandpappy's time Barrett would have been taken out and horsewhipped", than "somebody oughta kill that idiot Barrett". Stupid and not moving the discussion forward, certainly. But it's pretty weak beer as a threat.
Click to expand...

I believe MarkyX has received death threats, and at least one person on the LC board threatened to beat up Gravy. I don't recall anyone here making similar threats against any CT'er.

As for O'Reilly, the man is a dunce, so I'm not going to defend him. Of course, since Barrett presumes to accuse Kerry (a man who repeatedly withstood enemy fire in the service of his country) of having no guts, I'm surprised he'd be so bothered by anything O'Reilly has to say.
 
Last edited:
Dave1001 said:
The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire,
Click to expand...

Hi, Dave.

I just made a reply to similar points in another forum:

How come my outdoor grill doesn't explode upward into white hot ash and then melt away into a puddle when I'm cooking burgers on it? I thought fire melts steel?
Click to expand...
My reply:
An incredibly ignorant statement. You're saying that your grill has been through conditions comparable to those in the WTC and the debris piles?

“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected." –Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator

Why has no building before or since ever fallen from fire? Gee, I wonder........
Click to expand...
I think you're talking about steel-framed skyscrapers. But it is again, a disingenuos statement.

LIke so many CTs, you choose to focus on one factor and ignore the others. Why?

Do you know the three interdependent reasons that NIST gives for the tower collapses? Do you know that NIST concluded that the towers probably would not have fallen from the fires alone? It seems that you're just repeating CT nonsense, rather than reading the results of the investigations. At least read the executive summaries on the towers. At least read the interim report on building 7.

Now, are you claiming that structural steel can't collapse in a fire? If that were true, why do building codes mandate that fire-resistant materials be applied to all structural steel? It's the law. An entire industry is devoted to protecting structural steel from fire.

How about the Windsor building in Madrid? CTs use it all the time as an example of a building that had a long, severe fire on its top 10 floors and didn't collapse. They ignore the fact that the steel perimeter columns DID collapse due to fire alone on those floors, resulting in the concrete core standing there on its own. (Not to mention the fact that the building wasn't hit by an airliner at high speed, resulting in massive structural damage and fireproofing blasted off its steel.)

If steel can't fail in fires, can you explain why the designers of the new WTC 7 took the very expensive measure of covering all its structural steel in fireproofing that's FIVE TIMES thicker than required by law? And why that building was not built, like its predecessor, with a steel core, but with a thick concrete core?
 
Dave1001 said:
I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists.

The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.

Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.
Click to expand...

Dave, I think you watched Loose Change Version 1; they removed the pod/missile theory from Version 2.

As for it being absurd to knock down the silliest parts of LC, let me mention that back in May when anybody went over to the Loose Change Forum, the response to questions about mistakes and problems in LC was that it was perfect except for the B-52/B-25 mistake. Nowadays you go over there to praise the film and even the mods will admit, "Well, Loose Change 2 is far from perfect, but LCFC is going to be airtight".

And you can't take out much of the conspiracy theory that Dylan proposes and have anything left. Suppose the cellphone/airfone calls really happened? Well, then virtually the entire movie is wrong. If there were hijackers as the callers claimed, doesn't it become almost a certainty that they're the ones who flew the planes into the WTC? And if they're responsible for the WTC, aren't they likely also to blame for the Pentagon? And then it becomes preposterous to presume that United 93 didn't crash the way the official story tells it.

Oh, sure, you can construct another CT to cover the airfones; say LIHOP with controlled demolition. Or maybe it was an elite force of Mossad agents, disguised as Arabs. But at that point, you've completely thrown Loose Change out the window (which is a good idea anyway). Dylan's theory is a stool; you can't remove one leg and remain seated.
 
Stellafane said:
I believe MarkyX has received death threats, and at least one person on the LC board threatened to beat up Gravy.
Click to expand...
Somebody threatened to beat me up? They'd better have a baseball bat. As my last girlfriend said, "I've seen draft horses smaller than you." (And that was before I undressed!) :blush:
 
Gravy said:
Somebody threatened to beat me up? They'd better have a baseball bat. As my last girlfriend said, "I've seen draft horses smaller than you." (And that was before I undressed!) :blush:
Click to expand...

Ignoring the (ahem) horse comparison...I'm pretty certain I saw someone in the LC forum who said they'd be waiting for you at Ground Zero, and you better wear a mouth guard (or words to that effect). However, I thought you were already aware of this. If not, I could have be mistaken about the threat being directed towards you. (I don't have the link to the precise post, and trust me, I have no desire to search through that pile of sewage looking for it.) Since I absolutely do not want to be in position of discussing theats I can't prove 100%, I withdraw my comment -- and please accept my apology for trafficking in unverified information.

ETA (in view of the vast differences in our respective statures): Sir!
 
Stellafane said:
Ignoring the (ahem) horse comparison...I'm pretty certain I saw someone in the LC forum who said they'd be waiting for you at Ground Zero, and you better wear a mouth guard (or words to that effect). However, I thought you were already aware of this. If not, I could have be mistaken about the threat being directed towards you. (I don't have the link to the precise post, and trust me, I have no desire to search through that pile of sewage looking for it.) Since I absolutely do not want to be in position of discussing theats I can't prove 100%, I withdraw my comment -- and please accept my apology for trafficking in unverified information.

ETA (in view of the vast differences in our respective statures): Sir!
Click to expand...
I remember now. Just an idiot doing what idiots do. I'll be very easy to find at Ground Zero on 9/11. Just look for the big guy who's at Avery's side and who's not frothing at the mouth or wearing an "Investigate 9/11" t-shirt.

ETA: I will be wearing a spittle-guard.
 
Dave1001 said:
I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists...
Click to expand...
Well, calling those its "strongest" arguments doesn't say much, does it? They are rather easily debunked.

Welcome to the forum.
 
Oh, sure, you can construct another CT to cover the airfones; say LIHOP with controlled demolition. Or maybe it was an elite force of Mossad agents, disguised as Arabs. But at that point, you've completely thrown Loose Change out the window (which is a good idea anyway). Dylan's theory is a stool; you can't remove one leg and remain seated.[/QUOTE]

My stool floats... Dylan's sinks.
 
I am quitting that Nineleven.co.uk board.

All I ask is evidence that bombs were in the buildings, and instead they start asking me about gag orders or that Bush was part of Skull and Bones. I show the firefighter quotes, and they still go off-topic.

I can't debate with morons like that. It's not good for my health and I rather be playing Quake 4. If this is what the majority of people think in Europe, it's no wonder that it's a mess right now. They have Muslims praising Osama Bin Laden and wishing for more attacks in their cities, while they sit on a message board debating about 9/11 being a coverup with no indisputable evidence. I really like their priorities :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you, MarkyX.

Battlefield 2 is a much better game than Quake 4. Quake hasn't ruled the roost since Q2, iwch was a great game to be sure. But subsequent versions just haven't had the magic that Q2 did.
 
60hzxtl said:
Why not wear "Investigate Dylan Avery" shirts?
Click to expand...

This is actually an issue that I've been pondering lately. Our side lacks a bumper sticker-type slogan, and we're horribly positioned by calling them the "Truthers". Hmmmm, who oppose the "Truthers" but the "Liars"? We can't even call ourselves 9-11 Skeptics because that implies skepticism of the official story.

We have to reclaim the high ground on this (and no, I'm not kidding). How about pushing the terminology? They're not "Truthers" they're "9-11 Deniers". When they claim the hijackers are still alive (and have you noticed the number supposedly alive has been creepiing up), they're "Terrorist Apologists".
 
Brainster said:
This is actually an issue that I've been pondering lately. Our side lacks a bumper sticker-type slogan, and we're horribly positioned

snip

When they claim the hijackers are still alive (and have you noticed the number supposedly alive has been creepiing up), they're "Terrorist Apologists".
Click to expand...


How about, The Terrorist's Alibi ?

Or Osama's Apologists
 
Last edited:
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