Loose Change - Part III

[Hutch]

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7228

Looks like Russell Pickering from pentagonresearch has just about had it with the Loosers. He is also applying an insane amount of logic for a CT'er in that thread. I dont think its too long before he starts abandoning his beliefs about 911 altogether.

I think he's pretty much convinced that AA77 hit the Pentagon, but thinks it was remotely guided. I just sent him a message in which I told him that if hes's interested, I can explain to him with near 100% certainty that if AA77 hit the Pentagon(as he is sure of), that it couldnt have been by remote. It'll be interesting to see how he takes that......

Russell Pickering is one of the few over there I do truly respect; he is willing to do his own digging and contact people/places to try and add more evidence to support his therory and was not afraid to call folks on specious items. While I disagree with his conclusions, he is at least operating in a proper manner...and will probably end up banished from LC-we shall see.

Tried to turn him to the "Dark Side" while I was over there; perhaps he'll find it on his own.

Russ, if you happen to read this, feel free to post here for more discussion; I'll keep this bunch of hooligans in line for you...

And guys, take a deep breath and get a good night's sleep and ease up a bit on ol'SB/Jena; right now we are feeding him by responding to every post--lets take a look, if there are questions he's asking make sure we've answered them and then sit back and wait to see what comes next. Trading unproductive posts is, well, unproductive.

Just IMHO as always

Press on.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ironic I guess that I ask you the same.

My memory must be failing; can you please provide a link to where I was complaining about forum moderation?

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe it's my Catholic upbringing, but I think we should give SBrown another chance and have a discussion about Loose Change and the conspiracies with her.

 

[Kent1]

For those who might be interested, Bazant has an update to his paper on the WTC collapse.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

 

[Kent1]

Russell Pickering is one of the few over there I do truly respect; he is willing to do his own digging and contact people/places to try and add more evidence to support his therory and was not afraid to call folks on specious items. While I disagree with his conclusions, he is at least operating in a proper manner...and will probably end up banished from LC-we shall see.

Tried to turn him to the "Dark Side" while I was over there; perhaps he'll find it on his own.

Russ, if you happen to read this, feel free to post here for more discussion; I'll keep this bunch of hooligans in line for you...

And guys, take a deep breath and get a good night's sleep and ease up a bit on ol'SB/Jena; right now we are feeding him by responding to every post--lets take a look, if there are questions he's asking make sure we've answered them and then sit back and wait to see what comes next. Trading unproductive posts is, well, unproductive.

Just IMHO as always

Press on.

I agree. I respect people like him who REALLY does research. Contacting various experts/primary sources seems to be SO rare on the CT side.

 

[Gravy]

Maybe it's my Catholic upbringing, but I think we should give SBrown another chance and have a discussion about Loose Change and the conspiracies with her.

No one has prevented SBrown from having a discussion. No one has forced SBrown to be a troll. Those are his/her choices.

 

[Pardalis]

No one has prevented SBrown from having a discussion. No one has forced SBrown to be a troll. Those are his/her choices.

You're right, it's all up to her now.

 

[rikzilla]

How about you show me proof that one thread is the reason you were banned. Why is up to me to dig for something I have no information on? That is simply insane.

DavidJames claims innocence right now, yet it does not take a genius to see he was just being extremely insulting.

Oh please!
We all know how the looser forum operates...hell, we've practically all been banned there...some more than once! Asking for such "proof" is like asking for proof that the sky is blue.

What is simply insane is that your entire "movement" is built on "digging up something (you) have no (real) information on" And yes...the troooth movement is clearly insane.

-z

 

[Kent1]

One other little update.
A new video showing some building 7 damage. A photo posted at DU

http://www.democraticunderground.co...w_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=97490&mesg_id=98276

I don't have the video yet, but its worth checking out.

 

[Gravy]

One other little update.
A new video showing some building 7 damage. A photo posted at DU

http://www.democraticunderground.co...w_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=97490&mesg_id=98276

I don't have the video yet, but its worth checking out.

Great contributions, Kent1. I wish my math was up to understanding the Bazant paper. Fascinating glimpse of WTC 7 there!

 

[SRW]

Pal Talk

Sometimes I feel that I an really spinning my wheels over there , then other times I run across a fence sitter and an able to demonstrate how ludicrous the CT claims, are. For example the was a Controlled demo of building 7 rant going on and I was able to Link the pages the NYT did on all the Firemen, who were there. Same with the Pentagon, where they would haul out the one guy who saw a small plane and I was able to bring out the dozens who saw a Jet. The big revaluation comes when I show that one of them does not have a clue about what he is talking about. (if I can keep from getting bumped that is.

This one guy went on and on about Ollie North and OBL, I was about the shoot him down with the truth and made him look foolish. And got the point across to the room, not to believe those loud mouths but to find out for them selfs. Catching them in a blatant lie and making them defend their positions is a great way to make them crack.

I would not recommend a room raid. but setting up a real truth might help. Going into thoes rooms makes you feel dirty, espcially when the anit-semitic crap comes out.

I am also thinking of putting a pod cast togethier of all the most ludricous statments, but there is just way to much junk...

 

[Gravy]

Sometimes I feel that I an really spinning my wheels over there , then other times I run across a fence sitter and an able to demonstrate how ludicrous the CT claims, are.

Thanks for fighting the good fight, SRW. Paltalk is video chat? Is that right?

 

[SRW]

Some vidio, mostly voice and text. and in that room lots of BS.

 

[SBrown]

OK where should I start, I am going to just recap here instead of quoting each post because I am tired of being accused of trolling because I answer everyones questions/comments/complaints/insults.

First of all the reason I tell everyone my plans is because I want to try and avoid all the insinuations that I am running or avoiding any questions or comments. I hope that it cuts down on ridicule aimed my while I cannot respond. Of course it appears as though that was a pipe dream.

Arkan_Wolfshade – you didnt; great you proved my statement false and you win. I just figured you might figure out what I meant without a whole page of reply. My fault.

Gravy – First you want to be vague and avoid a direct response with a link and dance around like I am trying to avoid the post at all, fine. All you had to do was give me the name of the thread, a link something (not some reference to a post name that you just assume I would know contained a link). Your demeanor here towards me reminds me a lot of how I am confrontational with people from here when they are over at LC(not as abrasive but same tone/manner). So I cannot fault you all that much since I am more guilty of it than you.

Now for the ban – can't disagree with you about the absolute ridiculous nature or absence of any reason or reasoning. There was no sense for you to be banned from the posting or discussion you were involved with in that thread whatsoever. Many Lc member's spoke up on your behalf. The members you pissed off must have been done through pm's (not inferring that you were wrong or uncivil). I have a feeling of who it may be that did the most complaining. Or maybe the mod that did it was just having a bad day and took it out on you, but whatever i agree you did not deserve it whatsoever. Now this was back in April, is this the event that started the bad blood between the two “groups”? I think that that is a pretty small reason to have such a disgust for each other and stoop to such tactics as we do. We should be able to have a discussion without anger being the biggest factor. Of course I understand I am a big perpetrator of it, I cause a lot of rifts (mostly on purpose) with you guys.

Johnny C. I do not have a clue on what you are talking about. You will have to refresh my memory, this board, lc board, your name, when did I do this evil thing?

Now as for debating here in a civilized way? Maybe in a few weeks. Why? For one it is obvious to me that many of you will not take me serious and simply have some bad feelings toward me and discussions will be derailed constantly because I have a hard time trying to ignore comments thrown my way. Funny thing is three of the people that I have made the most angry here are some of my biggest supporters for a second chance after my suspension (you notice I said here, over at LC....). Second I am not a good debater. I have mentioned that many times. So if I start to enter the discussions now I will have more of a propensity to lose my temper and lash out if the environment is much more hostile. So anyways I am going to stick around and post some here and there. I am a joking person so I am going to continue in some of my theatrics (the less abrasive ones). I am not trying to get suspended or banned here anymore. I quit doing that after Tim was very cordial to me after I was obviously being a tool.

If you still want to hurl insults at me because you believe I am worthless, then by all means go for broke. You may be able to provoke me into slipping up and hurling insults back, but so far I have been called pathetic more times than I can count here and failed to respond (until now). CYA

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I, for one, welcome your contribution. That is, if you're sincere in what you say. Some of your early posts here were not promising, I think you must know.

Also, your tone at the LC forum (not to mention your sig) is quite hostile to the JREF in general. That's unfortunate, considering this is, at most, merely a gathering place to discuss near countless topics both serious and light. Do you think it is productive to behave in such a manner?

Regardless of all of this, please feel free to discuss any aspect of 9/11 you like. For instance, in my brief review of your past posts, I see you seem certain the Pentagon enjoys restricted airspace. Since it does not, will you retract the assertion?

 

[Gravy]

Now for the ban – can't disagree with you about the absolute ridiculous nature or absence of any reason or reasoning. There was no sense for you to be banned from the posting or discussion you were involved with in that thread whatsoever.

Thanks for agreeing.

Many Lc member's spoke up on your behalf. The members you pissed off must have been done through pm's (not inferring that you were wrong or uncivil).

Why the assumption? I sent no PMs, and the only one I received was from TheQuest, asking that I respond to a question he had posted, which I did. The thread I started was by far the most popular one on the LC forum, hence TheQuest's "You're wasting our time" comments.

Now this was back in April, is this the event that started the bad blood between the two “groups”? I think that that is a pretty small reason to have such a disgust for each other and stoop to such tactics as we do.

Hardly. I was a latecomer to these issues. Others were banned and suspended for similar non-violations before me. I think the animosity that exists between the groups results from how the events of 9/11 are portrayed, what standards of evidence are used, and how amenable people are to altering their positions to conform to the facts.

We should be able to have a discussion without anger being the biggest factor.

Many of us attempted to do that on the LC forum. Our arguments were met with suspensions and bans. In what way is this consistent with a search for the truth? Don't you find it extremely hypocritical that the "truth movement" bans people who have logical, factual information to offer? Why do you support such a group?

Now as for debating here in a civilized way? Maybe in a few weeks. Why? For one it is obvious to me that many of you will not take me serious and simply have some bad feelings toward me and discussions will be derailed constantly because I have a hard time trying to ignore comments thrown my way.

I'm curious to know if you have any understanding of why people have a hard time taking you seriously here. These are just a few of your threads that weren't removed by the mods because of your spamming. Your behavior patterns were pointed out to you a number of times, to no positive effect.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1670279#post1670279
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1677804&postcount=1237
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1694732#post1694732
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1726643#post1726643
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58969
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58972
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58978
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58984
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58988
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59598
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59609
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1753972&postcount=33
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59611
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1754359&postcount=39

I am not trying to get suspended or banned here anymore. I quit doing that after Tim was very cordial to me after I was obviously being a tool.

That's good news. I sincerely welcomed you when you first started posting here. Welcome back.

 

[Gravy]

...For instance, in my brief review of your past posts, I see you seem certain the Pentagon enjoys restricted airspace. Since it does not, will you retract the assertion?

Talk about restricted! Remember the attempted "Million Missile March" on the Pentagon?

Posted by elroacho at LC forum

It has its own radar system capable of tracking over a million missles fired at it simutanously, underground and aboveground missle launchers, cameras every few feet, andrews a few miles away. It has been regaurded as "the most secure building on earth".

Permit denied!

 

[gumboot]

His thoughts are at the top of the http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html page, if you're interested. (Apologies for plugging my own site, but I think this guy is qualified enough for it to be relevant.)

I find something really interesting in his piece (which is excellent). It is a quote from Nila Sagadevan's article:

approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway - -, there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing. - -

Comments similar to this one REALLY make me angry, because my Father had a friend who was in the Naval Wing which was hit. He happened to be in another part of the building at the time, so he survived, but many of his workmates did not.

The main thing is this section was NOT under renovation. It had been FINISHED. It was fully staffed as an office.

The list of victims at the Pentagon (not including those onboard AA77) is here.

To summarise... the list includes the following people with rank:

Spc. Craig Amundson, 28, Fort Belvoir, Va.
Lt. Col. Canfield D. Boone, 54, Clifton, Va.
Sgt. 1st Class Jose Orlando Calderon-Olmedo, 44, Annandale, Va.
Lt. Cmdr. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.
Lt. Col. Jerry Don Dickerson, 41, Durant, Miss.
Capt. Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Alexandria, Va.
Cmdr. William Howard Donovan, 37, Nunda, N.Y.
Cmdr. Patrick S. Dunn, 39, Springfield, Va.
Lt. Cmdr. Robert Randolph Elseth, 37, Vestal, N.Y.
Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, Elgin, Neb.
Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan, 40, Fla.
Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, 45, Burke, Va.
Sgt. Maj. Lacey B. Ivory, 43, Woodbridge, Va.
Lt. Col. Dennis M. Johnson, 48, Port Edwards, Wis.
Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31, Baton Rouge, La.
Maj. Steve Long, 39, Ga.
Lt. Col. Dean E. Mattson, 57, Calif.
Lt. Gen. Timothy J. Maude, 53, Fort Myer, Va.
Maj. Ronald D. Milam, 33, Washington, D.C.
Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, Flossmoor, Ill.
Spc. Chin Sun Pak, 25, Lawton, Okla.
Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, Mingoville, Pa.
Maj. Clifford L. Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Va.
Lt. J.G. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, Columbia, Md.
Lt. Col. David M. Scales, 44, Cleveland, Ohio
Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, Alexandria, Va.
Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, Naperville, Ill.
Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, 52, Woodbridge, Va.
Maj. Kip P. Taylor, 38, McLean, Va.
Sgt. Tamara Thurman, 25, Brewton, Ala.
Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, Lemoore, Calif.
Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, 37, Nampa, Idaho
Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, 40, Houston, Texas
Staff Sgt. Maudlyn A. White, 38, St. Croix, Virgin Islands
Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32, Newport, Ore.
Maj. Dwayne Williams, 40, Jacksonville, Ala.

This does not include 3x people listed with (retired) rank (a Master Sergeant, Captain, and Lieutenant Colonel).

That would have to be the strangest collection of "civilian construction workers" ever to congregate in one place.

-Andrew

P.S. I find the staggering number of high-ranking officers to be quite chilling.

 

[Stellafane]

OK where should I start...

Hi SBrown. I'm guessing this couldn't have been easy for you to write, and in my opinion, it shows a certain level of maturity and self-awareness that frankly, I had not thought you were capable of, based on your earlier posts.

I suspect you know that your past posting behavior in this forum has dug a rather sizeable hole for yourself as far as your reputation goes. And because of that, I'm still rather wary of your overall intentions here. But I'm with Pardalis (perhaps because we were both brought up Catholic) in being willing to give people a second chance.

So in all sincerity, I'd like to ask a question (and a followup): What for you is the biggest, most obvious problem with the "official" version of 9/11? Why do you think that, and what, if anything, would convince you that the official version is in fact correct? If you're truly interested in meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas and information, this might be a good way to start.

ETA: BTW, are you male or female? I don't care either way; I just don't want to impolitely refer to you as "she" if in fact you're male, and vice versa. For the record, I'm male (despite the fact my nick is sometimes shortened to "Stella").

 

[Hutch]

P.S. I find the staggering number of high-ranking officers to be quite chilling.

Nice information, gumboot. I would comment on your remark, though: the majority of the ranks shown were LTC (0-5) or Major (0-4) (the US Navy CDR and LT CDR are equal to LTC and MAJ), and nearly all career officers in the US Military will eventually make those ranks. It is moving onward to "Full Bird" Colonel and General level that really weeds out the numbers and most Career Officers end as LTC (at least in my observation of the US Army as a civilian employee for the last 25 years).

The only really high-ranking Officer lost was the Lt General (3-star level).

Just my two cents.