Loose Change - Part III

[JamesB]

These guys crack me up. We have been arguing for years that it would be impossible to wire the buildings with explosives, since the crashing airplane would screw things up. So now a CTer uses this idea, as an argument that THERE WERE NO PLANES!

(c1team @ Jun 25 2006, 05:59 PM)
If you really think about it, it's so much harder to CGI/bluescreen w/e then to either switch/remote control some planes into a building. If your gonna kill some people and do series damage why bring hollywood into it? Also stupid to think that since more video was taken of the second strike then the first and to say it was CGI.

The basic fact is, whoever is doing this is going to use some real ****. Were talking about a WORLD EVENT!

Killtown, I'm sure your a real good guy but you need to lose your tunnel vision of no planers.

Did you ever stop to think that if they crashed a real 767 into the tower that they wouldn't be able to demo the exact floor they wanted to because the 767 would ruin their placements of the explosives?

What's my "tunnel vision", the truth?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6919

I swear, if any of them actually had to put together a coherent theory their collective heads would explode.

 

[dubfan]

You could have a blog just about Killtown. I love that guy's posts.

I wonder if he's a troll, or if he really believes all the crap he says.

 

[JamesB]

You just have to love their thought process: "If it is impossible for there to be both a plane crash and explosives, the logical conclusion must be there was no plane crash!"

 

[Belz...]

I was born from quebec and there is a damn good reason why my family decided to move to Ontario.

I've been back there several times in the past but refuse to go there even though my relatives are there. Insults and snobs are just a few choice words to describe when I suddenly start speaking english instead of french.

Yeah, people here DO tend to look down at people when they speak other languages.

And they say French people are beign discriminated against.

Hatred is a double-edged sword.

 

[Pardalis]

I mearly enquired about a logical fallacy. I wasn't the one who brought up that whole debate.

ETA: Now let's keep the discussion about Loose Change and the CTs shall we?

 

[Class]

You could have a blog just about Killtown. I love that guy's posts.

I wonder if he's a troll, or if he really believes all the crap he says.

He was cited in the "Thanks to:" section at the end of Loose Change 2nd Edition and he is a moderator (or at least he was).

His posts are a riot. He claims there is no true amatuer footage of the plane hitting the second tower, and when people post links to amatuer footage, he says CGI'd or that it's amatuer, but not "truly amatuer".

EDIT: Almost forgot about his claims of explosives and/or cutting charges blowing the plane shaped hole in the sides of the WTC. His evidence is that both planes hit at the same angles.

 

[dubfan]

Jeebus, they can't even get the flight numbers right.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6917

1,200 La Conf. Shown The Fakery Of Flt 165, ....and many "got it"

 

[Pardalis]

What bothers me, is not only will regular people easily believe Loose Change without thinking the film's propositions through, they don't even bother finding out who the filmmakers are and what else they are saying.

 

[Brainster]

Funny you should say that. You'd think that after our 3 monster Loose Change threads (with, what, 150,000+ views and hundreds of pages, and who knows how many contributors and subsidiary threads) that JREF would've exhausted all the possibilities for stupidity that that silly video had to offer. After following this thread for two months, I thought I'd seen it all.

But your blog shows that, as much stupidity as you think is present in Loose Change, there's always more to discover. It's like a bottomless pit of stupidity. Its depths can never be fully plumbed.

Well, that is, until the final cut comes out, when everything will be absolutely perfect, all those niggling little errors that Gravy and the rest of us have used to poke holes in the film will be fixed and everybody will be forced to acknowledge the "Truth".

But seriously, these folks are only beginning their descent into decades of madness. As you know, Fetzer's a major JFK nut as well as a Truther, and he's always been able to come up with some spectacular new theory to sell his latest book. In 1998 he was claiming that Zapruder was a CIA man and the film was a hoax. There will always be a new dot to be connected, a new technology to be retroactively fit into the story, a new person implicated in the conspiracy or the coverup.

 

[JamesB]

Fetzer is my newest favorite loon. One could dedicate an entire blog to him too. My favorite is where he claims Halliburton got a $500 million contract to build concentration camps in the US, most likely on closed military bases.

And if that weren't bad enough, they were importing Chinese made guillotines to use in this camps.

I am not sure whether he was more upset with the guillotines, or the fact that they were made in China. What is wrong with US made guillotines after all! Don't we make anything in this country anymore? WalMart must be behind it somehow.

 

[Pardalis]

I was wondering, these people are asking for an independant international investigation, right? So:

whom are they asking this to? So far, as far as I know, they just raised questions and asked no one and no institutions directly

Who should have the authority to start such an investigation?
Who is supposed to assemble the team of experts? The UN council? They can't even decide what to do with Sudan.

Who will pay for such an investigation?

At wich point the investigation should end? Are they asking to investigate their theories, or just the events that took place?

I'm starting to think they don't even want an other investigation because they know their demands are impossible.

 

[Pardalis]

I am not sure whether he was more upset with the guillotines, or the fact that they were made in China. What is wrong with US made guillotines after all! Don't we make anything in this country anymore? WalMart must be behind it somehow.

It's not like a guillotine is an especially difficult aparatus to assemble and construct. Why would they need to import Chinese ones?

ETA: And why would they need guillotines when they got guns? lol

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Can someone check my maths and logic in this thread to make sure I'm not digging myself some kind of illogical maths hole?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6884&st=30

I'm Jonathan Picture-Elements, I've not worked out how to link to individual posts on there yet.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, what do you and the other NYC'ers here think of the plans for GZ? I've been following the whole thing since the outset (mostly with disgust, I'm sad to say), and I'm not optimistic that what they're planning to do there is going to end up satisfying anyone.

Exactly. Whatever they do – or don't do –*at Ground Zero, it's going to piss off a lot of people. I wish they would leave the area as a memorial (except for WTC 7, which is off to the side). The result is going to be a strange mix:

Holy ground...with shopping!

Freedom Tower: feeling lucky?

The New Ground Zero: because nothing says "respect for the dead" like a few million square feet of back-office space for brokerage houses.

The World Trade Center has always been a great place to do business! Our detractors like to harp on the fact that we've had some terrorist setbacks. We prefer to think of them as terrorist opportunities. Here's something to consider. While at its operational peak, the World Trade Center hosted over 150,000 workers and visitors per work day. Yet on average, we lose only 81 people per year to terrorism! That's right, more people die from natural causes at the World Trade Center than from terrorism! WTCx3: The third time's the charm!

 

[Gravy]

These guys crack me up. We have been arguing for years that it would be impossible to wire the buildings with explosives, since the crashing airplane would screw things up. So now a CTer uses this idea, as an argument that THERE WERE NO PLANES!
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6919
I swear, if any of them actually had to put together a coherent theory their collective heads would explode.

The Steven E. Jones theory is that all the floors were wired with explosives. (Well, not wired. He thinks they were radio-controlled explosives) That way, the detonator operator could select the correct floors after the planes hit. The explosives would have to be protected from the heat and damage, of course, but Jones doesn't see that as a problem.
Makes perfect sense.

 

[Hawk one]

Exactly. Whatever they do – or don't do –*at Ground Zero, it's going to piss off a lot of people. I wish they would leave the area as a memorial (except for WTC 7, which is off to the side). The result is going to be a strange mix:

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I tend to be rather pragmatic about whether to build something back on the spot. One of the things people that know they are about to die tend to tell other people is that they have to keep on living. I don't see it as a sign of disrespect as such to get it back to being a proper business area again. And I probably don't think their promotional slogans will be that blatant. (Then again, you never know...)

But, I will be the first to admit that I haven't seen WTC in person before it fell, and I haven't seen the spot hundreds of times afterwards, so I am nowhere nearly as emotionally attached to the disaster area as I could be (and perhaps should be?).

 

[Kent1]

The Steven E. Jones theory is that all the floors were wired with explosives. (Well, not wired. He thinks they were radio-controlled explosives) That way, the detonator operator could select the correct floors after the planes hit. The explosives would have to be protected from the heat and damage, of course, but Jones doesn't see that as a problem.
Makes perfect sense.

Jones theory is that an unknown amount of floors and some unknown combination of explosives and thermite/thermate(possibly superthermite) caused the buildings to fall.
Since thermite can't burn sideways he is trying to come up with some sort of fireproof, ultra tough cylinder/wedge that was welded to an unknown amount of core/perimeter columns that causes thermite to burn in diagonal lines.

 

[Gravy]

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I tend to be rather pragmatic about whether to build something back on the spot. One of the things people that know they are about to die tend to tell other people is that they have to keep on living. I don't see it as a sign of disrespect as such to get it back to being a proper business area again. And I probably don't think their promotional slogans will be that blatant. (Then again, you never know...)

But, I will be the first to admit that I haven't seen WTC in person before it fell, and I haven't seen the spot hundreds of times afterwards, so I am nowhere nearly as emotionally attached to the disaster area as I could be (and perhaps should be?).

I want to make it clear that the opinion I expressed above isn't one I've ever pressed on anyone...except here! I wouldn't want the thankless job of planning that site.

To me, the most important pragmatic concerns are these:

There's no need for the office space, and the site hasn't attracted new tenants on its own merits. There is a glut of development in NYC now. To attract tenants to Ground Zero, the city, state and federal governments are offering enormous tax incentives and bond packages. Taxpayers are paying businesses to move to Ground Zero. That's not unusual for New York City, but I believe the incentives offered are unprecedented. And the more that happens, the more businesses will put their hands out and demand more, "or else." It's been happening for years. New York has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in recent to keep business here that merely threatened to leave, but that had no real plans to go. Now, we're spending more money than that on companies just to keep them from moving to MIDTOWN. Goldman Sachs is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the city, plus $1.6 billion in federally-backed Liberty Bonds, in order to build a new HQ at Ground Zero and not in midtown Manhattan.

That's a huge pragmatic concern for me.

My major pragmatic concern is the obvious fact that two major terrorist attacks have occured there, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Building an enormous skyscraper like Freedom Tower, as opposed to structures that are smaller, safer, and less inviting to terrorists, does not strike me as a wise thing to do. That building will be a purely symbolic gesture, except that real people will be working there. Comapnies that take the incentives and move there will be putting their employees in the position of potentially working in the world's biggest target, or of leaving their jobs.

 

[Hawk one]

I want to make it clear that the opinion I expressed above isn't one I've ever pressed on anyone...except here! I wouldn't want the thankless job of planning that site.

[snip]

It wasn't pressing your opinion at all. It was voicing your opinion, and you are more than allowed to do that. Especially here. And I'm glad you did so.

And also, thanks for giving me details about the practical issues. I was, as you can imagine, pretty much ignorant to most of this, except that I knew it wasn't at all unusual to generally give huge tax breaks to the businesses. So, you've given me some good info to think about, and I can already say that I see your point, and am quite likely to agree with it.

Gee, this is getting all too nice and logical and stuff. Someone post a link to the latest LC foolery, quick!

 

[Pardalis]

My major pragmatic concern is the obvious fact that two major terrorist attacks have occured there, costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Building an enormous skyscraper like Freedom Tower, as opposed to structures that are smaller, safer, and less inviting to terrorists, does not strike me as a wise thing to do. That building will be a purely symbolic gesture, except that real people will be working there. Comapnies that take the incentives and move there will be putting their employees in the position of potentially working in the world's biggest target, or of leaving their jobs.

I hadn't thought of that this way. It's an interesting take. But the problem with that I think is it implies that America should stop building huge skyscrapers. And what kind of message would that leave for the terrorists? That they've wone? No, I think Freedom Tower is a powerful message.