Loose Change - Part III

[XXX]

It's like the WWE of CT!

They can battle it out in a steel cage (with a re-enforced concrete core).

 

[JamesB]

There's some real wackiness on the 911 Studies forum. One poster, MMC, has made several jaw-droppers in just a few posts:

I am writing up a paper in response to Legge's Evidence Suggests Complicity paper (I loved your response BTW). He failed to respond to my PNAC point, but I am building off of that.

I noticed one rather strange part of his paper.

In the case of the north tower, WTC 1, sufficient time was allowed between the plane impact and the demolition for evacuation of the building, at least for the part below the impact zone. This did not happen however with WTC 2, the south tower, the top of which started to topple over.6 This building started to collapse downwards within one second of it starting to tilt, which suggests the timing of the demolition was under the control of a close observer. The collapse started long before evacuation was complete, causing much loss of life.

A voiding unnecessary loss of life appears to have been a concern of the perpetrators, judging by what happened with WTC 1, but in the case of WTC 2 this concern apparently gave way to another. The change in procedure would have been due to the critical importance of maintaining the illusion that the buildings were destroyed by plane impact and fire. If the top of WTC 2 had tipped right over and had fallen to the ground the perpetrators would have found themselves in a dilemma. If they then demolished the lower unheated portion it would have been impossible to argue that fire in the top caused the collapse. If they left the lower portion standing it would have contained explosives which would lead to certain discovery of the plot. To avoid this dilemma the tower had to be dropped the moment it started to tip to conceal the use of explosives. History shows that this strategy was very successful in molding public opinion: very few people have become aware that explosives were involved.

While all his associates are arguing that there was no way it could collapse, he is arguing that it was collapsing. I wish they would make up their mind.

Although the idea that the top was going to flop over is rather amusing.

 

[Brainster]

Do you think this is what it was like at the Council of Nicea?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6453&view=findpost&p=5657928

You know, we might applaud them for dropping the pod/missile theory, but they appear to be solidifying around the bumble planes, with all that implies--no 767s into the towers, a missile into the Pentagon, lord only knows what they think crashed into Shanksville.

One of the interesting bits in the smorgasbord is the interview with "not the Green Party Candidate for Senate" Sander Hicks (who's a nutbar all on his own; Google him some afternoon when you've got a few minutes). Hicks hits on a fairly interesting little tale about the head of the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA (the ISI) and his relationship with then Congressman (and later CIA Director) Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham of Florida, which led the three to be having breakfast together on 9-11. It is argued that the head of the ISI had wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 just before the 9-11 attacks

The story checks out at least on one side strongly. The Washington Post confirms the 9-11 breakfast between Goss, Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of the ISI. The other side is a little more tenuous. The Asia Times made the claim against Pakistan, which means that the story is suspect to begin with.

Still, it does have the necessary "woo" factor--the man who gave Mohammed Atta $100 large, also met with the future head of the CIA on 9-11? That breakfast will be featured prominently in conspiracy theories for a hundred years.

But I wonder if LC will use it? Hicks is a nut, and he adds nothing to the story, and he didn't get the Green Party nomination, anyway. Besides, if you buy somebody wiring Mohammed Atta $100,000, aren't you buying Mohammed Atta?

So where do they go with LCFC?

I'm going to take a WAG here and say that they double down with their theory of unknown objects into the WTC and Pentagon. They may need to jettison the Flight 93 stuff. It would get them out of one of their major headaches (the cellphone/Airfone calls)

 

[Gravy]

I am writing up a paper in response to Legge's Evidence Suggests Complicity paper (I loved your response BTW). He failed to respond to my PNAC point, but I am building off of that.

I noticed one rather strange part of his paper.

While all his associates are arguing that there was no way it could collapse, he is arguing that it was collapsing. I wish they would make up their mind.

Although the idea that the top was going to flop over is rather amusing.

Oy! What a dope!
He seems to think the top of WTC 2 tipped, then someone noticed that happening and detonated explosives to make it fall down, not over! Truly an extraordinary hypothesis. As any decent video shows, it tipped AS it was falling. The first – and uninterrupted – motion was down.

For those not following along, we're talking about a "Scholar for Truth."

 

[JamesB]

Oy! What a dope!
He seems to think the top of WTC 2 tipped, then someone noticed that happening and detonated explosives to make it fall down, not over! Truly an extraordinary hypothesis. As any decent video shows, it tipped AS it was falling. The first – and uninterrupted – motion was down.

For those not following along, we're talking about a "Scholar for Truth."

Not to mention that it would require incredibly quick reflexes.

 

[gumboot]

Oy! What a dope!
He seems to think the top of WTC 2 tipped, then someone noticed that happening and detonated explosives to make it fall down, not over! Truly an extraordinary hypothesis. As any decent video shows, it tipped AS it was falling. The first – and uninterrupted – motion was down.

I think this also contributes to the very short collapse time - they seem to begin it from the "dust cloud" moment at which the tipping upper section makes contact with the sub-impact section.

They miss the fact that the floors of impact collapsed together first, and the building began to fall (rotating slighting as it came down - not tipping) well before the dust clouds appeared.

-Andrew

 

[JamesB]

Fetzer is such an ass. I am listening to his interview with Alan Colmes and some guy came on and said his uncle died on United 93. He said his uncle was talking to his aunt during the flight when Fentzer started screaming hysterically, “You can’t make calls from flights, we have a scientist who is flying around the country trying this and you can’t make calls!”

The caller screamed back, “You ever been on a plane genius, they have phones on the back of the seat!”

I am going to have to start taking breaks from following these idiots, before I go postal on someone.

 

[Ducky]

There's a program on right now about the Pentagon, and the rebuilding and one of the workers who specifically requested to work to help rebuiild the pentagon did so because his kid was killed that day. He talks about how he walks his son's steps and that he feels fortunate that his son's body was recovered as a whole body.

He was very upset toward the end when he talked of getting a lock of his son's hair.

And these jerks desecrate that every time they spew their crap.

It pisses me off.

Every time I see Avery's public comments and especially that joking crap about the people on the flights makes me want to punch someone.

GARH. I have to go watch some Family Guy or something.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

I wouldn't be one to cast doubt on the impartiality of the mods on the LC forum, but as soon as London Eye appeared in a thread I was debating in, I got a 30 day suspension. I see this morning that it's been reduced to 3. Good job nothing over there is knee jerk reaction or anything.

 

[CurtC]

He was very upset toward the end when he talked of getting a lock of his son's hair.

And these jerks desecrate that every time they spew their crap.

You may not know, but the LC crowd accuses this man specifically of being in on the conspiracy, because he had had a talk with his son just the day before about death, and on 9/11 the man didn't go to work at the Pentagon but instead was playing golf. They say he callously helped murder his own son.

 

[Pardalis]

While all his associates are arguing that there was no way it could collapse, he is arguing that it was collapsing. I wish they would make up their mind.

Although the idea that the top was going to flop over is rather amusing.

Yeah, it reminds me of geggy boy's controlled-demo-made-to-look-like-a-fake-collapse-from-the-top theory, wich he hasn't completely explained yet.

geggy boy? Where's my geggy boy?

 

[Pardalis]

Not to mention that it would require incredibly quick reflexes.

and talk about improvisation...

They're supposed to have had all this conspiracy figured out and planned so well...

It's like: "Let's prepare this event prefectly, as to no one noticing anything, then on the day let's just see how things happen and go from there".

Geez...

ETA: Wich reminds me of one of the main reasons I refuse the idea of a conspiration. The CT 9/11 is such a huge event, that the possibility of things srewing up are exponentially increasing with so many variables and people involved. To me no organisation (be it the infamous "Globalists" or whoever else) in their right mind would even risk it. The simpler the plot is, the better.

 

[Pardalis]

There's some real wackiness on the 911 Studies forum. One poster, MMC, has made several jaw-droppers in just a few posts:

I hadn't noticed that board before. This thread is moving so fast, I must have missed it.

You guys really nail that guy!

 

[MarkyX]

Fetzer is such an ass. I am listening to his interview with Alan Colmes and some guy came on and said his uncle died on United 93. He said his uncle was talking to his aunt during the flight when Fentzer started screaming hysterically, “You can’t make calls from flights, we have a scientist who is flying around the country trying this and you can’t make calls!”

The caller screamed back, “You ever been on a plane genius, they have phones on the back of the seat!”

I am going to have to start taking breaks from following these idiots, before I go postal on someone.

You should've got an MP3 of that.

 

[Belz...]

Not to mention that it would require incredibly quick reflexes.

It would also require that they know in advance that the top of tower 2 might tip over. That's quite a bit of planning, indeed.

Also, if they knew that it would tip over, that would invalidate the CTers' contention that the structural damage from the plane impacts and the fire was insufficient to cause a collapse!

 

[JamesB]

I found it on the "scholars" site. I posted it on Screw Loose Change. The phone part is at 17 minutes or so. A warning, listening to this idiot will piss you off.

He is lying about the professor "flying all over the country" btw. The Achilles study was based on 2 cell phones flying somewhere over Canada. Ontario of I remember right.

 

[Belz...]

They say he callously helped murder his own son.

This is what anonymity does to you. You can say whatever you want and, apparently for some people, you actually DO.

 

[Brainster]

You should've got an MP3 of that.

You can download it from here. Fetzer seems to be becoming the spokesman for these nutters, which is probably a good thing for our side. He'll be on Laura Ingraham tomorrow; I suspect that she'll fillet him.

Just listening to Fetzer on Colmes now; he repeats the nonsense about Underwriters' Laboratory certifying the structural steel.

 

[Belz...]

ETA: Wich reminds me of one of the main reasons I refuse the idea of a conspiration.

Your French is showing, Pardalis.

The CT 9/11 is such a huge event, that the possibility of things srewing up are exponentially increasing with so many variables and people involved. To me no organisation (be it the infamous "Globalists" or whoever else) in their right mind would even risk it. The simpler the plot is, the better.

Yes. Just hire a bunch of arab fundamentalists via a third party. Or something.

Anyway, THAT conspiracy theory would be easier to maintain.

 

[Pardalis]

Also, if they knew that it would tip over, that would invalidate the CTers' contention that the structural damage from the plane impacts and the fire was insufficient to cause a collapse!

That's so good Belz! LOL