Loose Change - Part III

[Gravy]

Snappy slogans for the dead, anyone?

QUOTE (sandboxface @ Jun 22 2006, 06:06 PM)

I see people want to respect the fallen. There is really only one way to do that: Demand a complete and transparent investigation of the facts that both led up to and allowed the events of that day to transpire. Anything less than this is a diservice to all the victims of 9/11 both the dead and the living.

SandBoxFace, you're hitting the nail on the head.

Your comments are both penetrating and compelling.

What we truthers now need to do is to encapsulate that concept into a snappy slogan or a ready retort in order to silence the naysayers and placate those whose emotions are inextricably linked with 9/11.

Any ideas anyone?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6602&view=findpost&p=5532341

 

[Orb]

How about "While you read Gravy, we piss on Graves"

 

[WildCat]

Ah, OK, I've not followed SP closely enough to link it to SP. It keeps coming up on /. There's at least one posts per topic in /. giving a variation of the three or four step plan to Profit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes

 

[dubfan]

I'll tell you who the real piece of work is in that thread: Guileless Guy.

Fair Jessica made the mistake of expressing sympathy for two American soldiers (23 and 25 years old) who were tortured and beheaded.

I read other people's comments. I made my own comment even though it may have overlapped a little.

You are sympathizing with the aggressors and murderers of innocent people there, majorily. That is a true American right there?!

You feel sorry for how people now kill, as the article states, in terms of defensive warfare and securing their homeland?

Throughout the world today, there is no LEGITIMATE OFFENSIVE war.

You sound like the American sympathizers and the ones that cry for pity for the soldiers' deaths.

First off, I am not talking about the Iraqis. The problem I have is your sympathy for people, although I agree to that they were perhaps young and brainwashed, but still they were culprits, who had freewill to go there and are accountable for the most part.

The families, I don't have sympathy for. Why should I? Its not guilt by association. It is rather that they failed into persuading them not to go to war. That is how I see it. The intellect of the youth that went there had more time to be nurtured and molded on a low sociological level, but there was failure in this department, and hence these people went to a constant aberration that lead to their demise.

The 9/11 victims' relatives can correspond to the Iraqi victims' relatives, as both suffered, and continue to do so, unjustly. The soldiers are combattants much like the perpetraitors of the whole 9/11 plot, so why should they and their relatives have my sympathy? That was a bad comparison, Jessica, and I thought you knew better.

 

[Orb]

Ugh, I just threw up a little in my mouth.

 

[delphi_ote]

You're a player hater who seems to give off vibes like your jealous of the LC group. Is that true? Is this what you're about?


I bet you were one of those kids that used to get beat up in scholl and now you're on some mind trip to get back at all the people you feel hostile to.





You've got to get a life, dude.
You're taking your trip too seriously.




Sentinel

Thank you, Sentinel. Your posts have done more than any of us could to expose true nature of the Loose Change movement.

 

[Class]

I'll tell you who the real piece of work is in that thread: Guileless Guy.

Fair Jessica made the mistake of expressing sympathy for two American soldiers (23 and 25 years old) who were tortured and beheaded.

All of his comments are offensive in so many ways.

 

[gumboot]

Step 1 : Destruction of the WTC
Step 2 : ?
Step 3 : Profit.

I knew it was the underpants gnomes all along.

-Andrew

 

[dubfan]

I want to preface this with a couple of thoughts. I am now looking at the Pentagon incident from the point-of-view of a remotely guided aircraft that has a minimum wingspan of 100 feet and a maximum wingspan of approximately 140 feet. I have been compelled to do this after spending a significant amount of time reviewing all evidence in great detail. My point-of-view from the beginning has been a no-plane scenario. For me it is time to consider the alternatives.

There are way too many problems with a Hollywood pyrotechnic show endorsed by fake witnesses, crooked rescuers, needlessly blown up lamp poles (2 explosives each), planted plane parts, vanishing planes, 59 missing people and on and on. Many questions are simply answered by an aircraft hitting the building.

Gee, Russ..you don't say?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6166

 

[JamesB]

Wow, the Loosers discover Occam's Razor.

 

[gumboot]

Wow...

It's incredible the way they explain away the details... two explosives per light, carving chunks out of generators, MY GAWD. They are desperately clinging to their fantasy.

That's my favourite thing. Someone like this "Russ" offers a way out, an alternative explanation that fits the evidence, and they ignore it! It's FAR more realistic that they swapped the light poles and carved holes in the generator. Uh huh.

Simply because they can't understand the physics of what happens in such situations. According to the official data, the jet fuel itself severed many of the columns in the Pentagon. I bet they won't believe THAT!

-Andrew

 

[60hzxtl]

Can anyone id' the opening footage of LC?

The Helicopter shot of the Statue of Liberty?

Is it from the feature film Working Girl?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0096463/

If so, the pilot is Al Cerullo, an incredibly talented pilot, whose work does not come cheap.

Would be a pity to see that puuuurty opening shot have to go away, but I think the owner might want to be paid for that stolen shot.

Hey, I won't get a dime for it, but I'm just asking questions.

 

[chipmunk stew]

How about "While you read Gravy, we piss on Graves"

 

[chipmunk stew]

Can anyone id' the opening footage of LC?

The Helicopter shot of the Statue of Liberty?

Is it from the feature film Working Girl?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0096463/

If so, the pilot is Al Cerullo, an incredibly talented pilot, whose work does not come cheap.

Would be a pity to see that puuuurty opening shot have to go away, but I think the owner might want to be paid for that stolen shot.

Hey, I won't get a dime for it, but I'm just asking questions.

Dylan said it's from "Joe's Apartment", I believe.

 

[60hzxtl]

Dylan said it's from "Joe's Apartment", I believe.

I guess the film makers told him it was ok, help yourself.

Joe's apartment shot is also Al Cerullo's work. He's the best, and most expensive in town.

 

[Hutch]

Gee, Russ..you don't say?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6166

I tend to like reading Russell Pickering; While I completely disagree with his conclusion that there was something conspiratorial about the Pentagon strike, he at least has shown signs of doing his own research and making conclusions that might be against his own preferences when the evidence takes him there.

Kinda wish we could get him over here for a good discussion, instead of the current crop (sentinel, christophera, umbinger). Someone who could at least make us stretch our thinking muscles while holding a relativley polite conversation.

And we might yet turn him to the Dark Side....

 

[Brainster]

Gee, Russ..you don't say?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6166

Falling back to the next redoubt?

Anybody ever put together a guide to all the people? Not so much for the purposes of rounding them all up in our special neocon prisons, you understand (as useful as that might be), but just so we can understand who believes what conspiracy, or if they don't endorse a specific version, they're just "asking questions", then which questions?

We could come up with an easy taxonomy on the CTers. Although the possibilities seem endless, they're fairly finite.

1. Overarching Plot:

a. 19 Hijackers controlled by Osama Bin Laden (Official Theory)
b. 19 Hijackers controlled by Osama Bin Laden and allowed to operate the 9-11 mission by persons in the US government. (LIHOP)
c. Plot perpetrated by US government, means indeterminate. (MIHOP)

2. World Trade Center 1 (North Tower): Attack

a. Hit by American Airlines Flight #11, a 767.
b. Hit by another plane.
c. Not hit by a plane.

3. World Trade Center 2 (South Tower): Attack

a. Hit by United Airlines Flight #175, a 767.
b. Hit by another plane.
c. Not hit by a plane.

4. Pentagon: Attack

a. Hit by American Airlines Flight 77, a 757.
b. Hit by another plane.
c. Not hit by a plane.

5. Flight 93

a. Crashed in Shanksville, PA.
b. Shot down.
c. Landed elsewhere.

6. WTC 1,2: Collapse

a. Structural failure due to impact and fires.
b. Controlled demolition.
c. Other cause.

7. WTC 7: Collapse

a. Structural failure due to impact of collapsing building and fires
b. Controlled demolition.
c. Other cause.

8. Who's really behind it

a. Al Qaeda
b. PNAC/Neocons/Zionists
c. Other people

I think that largely covers it, except for one addition to each list:

d. Refuses to disclose

We all know this one. "We don't know what happened, we're just asking questions." I could add a question about what happened to all the passengers on the planes if they were not used in the crashes, but most of the CTers know enough to throw their hands up in the air.

 

[milesalpha]

A quick question that I am hoping someone can update me on. I have been trying to look into the Jones paper a bit but have had a rough time finding certain information, here's what I am curious about.

1. They say it is peer reviewed but where?
2. Due to questions about the quality of the initial peer review, it is going to be published in a journal in 2007. Which one? And why wait so long?

Thanks.

 

[Hellbound]

2. World Trade Center 1 (North Tower): Attack

a. Hit by American Airlines Flight #11, a 767.
b. Hit by another plane.
c. Hit by something else
d. Not hit: hologram/illusion...damaged by other methods.

3. World Trade Center 2 (South Tower): Attack

a. Hit by United Airlines Flight #175, a 767.
b. Hit by another plane.
c. Hit by something else
d. Not hit: hologram/illusion...damaged by other methods.

4. Pentagon: Attack

a. Hit by American Airlines Flight 77, a 757.
b. Hit by another plane.
c. Hit by something else
d. Not hit: hologram/illusion...damaged by other methods..

5. Flight 93

a. Crashed in Shanksville, PA
b. Shot down.
c. Landed elsewhere/false plane crashed.
d. Landed elsewhere/no crash occured.

8. Who's really behind it

a. Al Qaeda
b. Bush & cronies
c. PNAC/Neocons/Zionists
d. Other people
e. Everyone except the CTers.

Just seperated a few of the categories to more clearly delineate

 

[dubfan]

A quick question that I am hoping someone can update me on. I have been trying to look into the Jones paper a bit but have had a rough time finding certain information, here's what I am curious about.

1. They say it is peer reviewed but where?

It was peer reviewed by other 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who happen to be physicists. Hence the "peer" review -- don't think for a minute it was peer reviewed by structural engineers. The review took place before publication in a book on 9/11 conspiracies. IIRC (but I'm not sure) it's in an anthology of 9/11 CT articles edited by David Ray Griffin. I could be wrong about that last point. Relying on memory here.

2. Due to questions about the quality of the initial peer review, it is going to be published in a journal in 2007. Which one? And why wait so long?

That, I don't know.