Loose Change - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
tacodaemon said:
Oh, you guys will like this. You know how Webfairy and Gerard think that that out-of-focus, compression-artifacted still from the Jules Naudet video shows a "blob" (or, as Webfairy calls it, a "Whatzit") flying toward the North Tower? Well, some other woo-woo -- who is on a CIA drug-running conspiracy list with Webfairy -- took the still, blew it up big, sent it through a bunch of edge-detecting Photoshop filters, and spotted a bunch of evil faces in it that are the signature of the Reptoid aliens who are probably really at fault.
Click to expand...

That has got to be the weirdest page that I have seen yet, and I've seen a few wild ones.
 
JamesB said:
Even more laughable Mr. Bowman asserts in a speech that real hourly wages are only 1/3 what they were in the 1950s. Hmm, I know some people who would dispute that. Like, say... every living American economist!
Click to expand...
Let's see. I think minimum wage was $0.95/hr. in 1968 (when I got my first job in high school). It's $5.15/hr in Ohio in 2006. So it's at least 5 times what it was about 35 years ago.

Following Mr. Skinny's rule-of-thumb guide that wages double about every 15 years, then I'd guesstimate that in 1950, minimum wage was about $0.50/hr. So, in 1965 it would be $1.00/hr, 1980 - $2.00/hr, 1995-$4.00/hr, 2010? - 8.00/hr. (I think Ohio is pushing for a raise to $7.15/hr right now).

I could listen to an argument that we are maybe 1/3 behind the 1950's, but not 2/3, based on my back-of-the-envelope guess above. Then again, I'm an engineer with no experience in economics.

Any true number crunchers out there?
 
Following Mr. Skinny's rule-of-thumb guide that wages double about every 15 years, then I'd guesstimate that in 1950, minimum wage was about $0.50/hr. So, in 1965 it would be $1.00/hr, 1980 - $2.00/hr, 1995-$4.00/hr, 2010? - 8.00/hr. (I think Ohio is pushing for a raise to $7.15/hr right now).

I could listen to an argument that we are maybe 1/3 behind the 1950's, but not 2/3, based on my back-of-the-envelope guess above. Then again, I'm an engineer with no experience in economics.

Any true number crunchers out there?
Click to expand...

I looked this up on the BLS website and posted it on my blog. Inflation adjusted we are only about a buck ahead since 1964 (as far back as they go). Not great, but a long ways away from 2/3 worse.

http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/2006/06/ltc-bob-bowman-scholar.html
I am just mystified at how everyone one of these idiots are not just wrong on one particular topic, but on everything they talk about.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Let's see. I think minimum wage was $0.95/hr. in 1968 (when I got my first job in high school). It's $5.15/hr in Ohio in 2006. So it's at least 5 times what it was about 35 years ago.
Click to expand...

The best source I've found for this type of info:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahr.htm

According to his chart, the 1968 minimum wage in constant 2002 dollars was $8.29 and that this was the highest it's ever been.

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/minwg.htm
 
A Plane Magnet? Of Course, It's So Logical!

This guy doesn't believe that a plane really hit the World Trade Center, but if it did, he knows how to make sure it hit in the right spot:

Let me stress that the planes/missiles are optional. They could have fitted some sort of "plane magnet" in WTC1 and WTC2 as well, thus ensuring the exact point of impact, however no planes would have been the easiest plan as far as success rate goes and there is photographic evidence to suggest that the planes have been added to the pictures electronically and there are plenty of people here who follow the no planes option as a result.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi
 
^^ These must be those planes made of solid, non-hollow iron that Gerard also seems to fantasize about (since he thinks the fact that the tail of the plane disappeared into the tower would imply that the front of the plane was still moving inside at the same speed).

ETA: Also, note the assumption that the towers had to be completely destroyed in order for the Evil PNAC Conspiracy to get the nation on a war footing -- as though just smashing the planes and burning the heck out of the towers wouldn't be enough by itself. For crying out loud, I can make up more plausible stories about their conspiracy theory than they can, and I don't even believe it!
 
Last edited:
Also, note the assumption that the towers had to be completely destroyed in order for the Evil PNAC Conspiracy to get the nation on a war footing -- as though just smashing the planes and burning the heck out of the towers wouldn't be enough by itself. For crying out loud, I can make up more plausible stories about their conspiracy theory than they can, and I don't even believe it!
Click to expand...

Don't forget about WTC7. As I sat there on my couch that dark Tuesday morning, I reassured myself, "Self, yeah I am angry, but at least World Trade Center 7 is still standing..."
 
Brainster said:
That has got to be the weirdest page that I have seen yet, and I've seen a few wild ones.
Click to expand...

Mate, google 'David Icke'.

I notice the tired old tact to debate Mr Roberts work is flood your post with 50 things you found wrong. Is it so hard to go into detail about just one of those things, slowly, easy to understand. What is it with people who post SO much. Its tiresome and whats the bet even more then half of the people in support of it would not read it. Its all about 'asking kwestions!'. Flood the other person with so much crap they cant be fugged.
 
Last edited:
Let me stress that the planes/missiles are optional. They could have fitted some sort of "plane magnet" in WTC1 and WTC2 as well, thus ensuring the exact point of impact, however no planes would have been the easiest plan as far as success rate goes and there is photographic evidence to suggest that the planes have been added to the pictures electronically and there are plenty of people here who follow the no planes option as a result.
Click to expand...

:hypnotize

w o w.
 
dubfan said:
:D
Click to expand...

I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.
 
JamesB said:
I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? The mayor moved the plans for the WTC, Silversteins tax records, George Bush's service record and the new world order phone book into WTC 7 and then had it demolished to keep the truth from the people.
 
JamesB said:
I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.
Click to expand...

Yes, note particularly that when they want a federal government agency to be part of the plot, they just add it, but when it's convenient for the theory those agencies can also be among the victims as well.

BTW, anybody see this USA Today article on health impacts to the WTC rescuers? This might be the one place where the Woos have a point. I remember the EPA making noises about how the air quality was safe; it now appears that was a lie. I say "appears" because I'm still skeptical (remember Gulf War Syndrome), but this is a pretty bad story from the government's standpoint.
 
JamesB said:
I was sarcastically pointing out the fact that blowing up the WTC7 was pointless. Most people still aren't aware of it. They have to come up with bizarre side theories like they were destroying SEC records or something to explain it.
Click to expand...
:D

Thanks, I can be a bit slow sometimes. Hey, I actually went to loose change and posed that question.

1.) It housed the CIA. Ahhh.. so what?
2.) Guliani's office was in there. So what?
3.) There were sensitive documents in there. ??????

Those people can sure try one's patience.
 
JamesB said:
Don't forget about WTC7. As I sat there on my couch that dark Tuesday morning, I reassured myself, "Self, yeah I am angry, but at least World Trade Center 7 is still standing..."
Click to expand...

You know they were really targeting the Borders bookstore at WTC5 so as to screw up my in-brain database of convenient pitstops throughout the city. (That Borders didn't make you use a key or token, but the restrooms were in the back of the second floor and kind of difficult to find, so they usually didn't get too dirtied up. It was my preferred spot in the Financial District if I needed to use the facilities. Seeing pics of the aftermath still chokes me up.)

Seriously, though, the CTers have some ad hoc excuse for why every incident on 9/11 happened: They had to fake the crash of United 93 so we would have the "Let's Roll" hero story to get us fired up. They had to destroy WTC7 so as to, um, get rid of some documents or something. It puts me in mind of the strong anthropic principle, or Martin Gardner's completely ridiculous anthropic principle (CRAP) -- "Everything had to happen the way it did, or else it wouldn't have happened the way it did!"
 
Johnny Pixels said:
Isn't it obvious? The mayor moved the plans for the WTC, Silversteins tax records, George Bush's service record and the new world order phone book into WTC 7 and then had it demolished to keep the truth from the people.
Click to expand...



I Thought they flew a guitar-shaped robot plane into it???

:confused:

-Andrew
 
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