• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Most. Arrogant. Email. Ever.
Seems to me like this is a brilliant example of how we can expect the discussion to improve as a result of your video.

On one thing he is right though, IMHO. Why is there not a more concerted effort from debunkers' side to have all possible evidence released, incl. testimonies under oath?
 
Seems to me like this is a brilliant example of how we can expect the discussion to improve as a result of your video.

On one thing he is right though, IMHO. Why is there not a more concerted effort from debunkers' side to have all possible evidence released, incl. testimonies under oath?

Because we, or just I, have enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion.The other things will come in time.My question is this; what will deniers say when that happens? Claim it all to be fake? Careful, keeping score here!
 
Last edited:
Because we, or just I, have enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion.The other things will come in time.My question is this; what will deniers say when that happens? Claim it all to be fake? Careful, keeping score here!
Typical. "We have all the evidence we need, and anyway any new evidence is going to be claimed fake by conspiracists since it's not going to fit with their beliefs, so no point in releasing it". This attitude is not doing much for credibility.
 
Typical. "We have all the evidence we need, and anyway any new evidence is going to be claimed fake by conspiracists since it's not going to fit with their beliefs, so no point in releasing it". This attitude is not doing much for credibility.


Enough to make a reasonable conclusion, does not mean it will not be nice when we get the rest. It will be !!!!!!!.Look to the wealth of info from Moose Boy the retarded hijacker trial. Did any of it help your theories out at all? I did't think so:-0....... As for credibility, the CTers seem to have the problems in that realm.So what was your point? BTW Should I put you down for "it will all be fake" vote?
 
Last edited:
As for credibility, the CTers seem to have the problems in that realm.So what was your point?
so... debunkers do not need to address any problems they might have in that realm? Ah yes I see, it's much more pressing to spend energy on showing what stoopids these Loosers are.
 
so... debunkers do not need to address any problems they might have in that realm? Ah yes I see, it's much more pressing to spend energy on showing what stoopids these Loosers are.


See that wasn't so hard ,now was it? Have a beer with that epiphany! You've earned it.
 
Seems to me like this is a brilliant example of how we can expect the discussion to improve as a result of your video.

On one thing he is right though, IMHO. Why is there not a more concerted effort from debunkers' side to have all possible evidence released, incl. testimonies under oath?


Debunkers only require sufficent evidence to rebut the claims of the CTs. It is really up to CTs to prove their case and acquire the evidence to do so. Is there any specific evidence you would like to see released?

Testimonies under oath? Suppose Larry Silverstein testified under oath that he meant pull out the firefighters when he said "pull it". Do you think that would make one jot of difference to the CTs?
 
From the e-mail MarkyX received... one thing stuck out...

But the U.S. is on trial here, and if I was a juror I would demand more info before reaching an innocent decision for the defendent.

:eek:

You need evidence to be proven innocent??? :confused:

I'm frightened.

-Andrew
 
Okay,

On a more serious note. I have been reading comments in response to the "9/11 Deniers Speak" video. Interesting points raised. I'd just like to offer my fair share of points.

Once, in order to speak out with any authority on a topic, one had to be an authority. The people who created works of scientific or investigative nature (originally "Books") these people could not get their works published unless they were recognised to be an authority.

The same is not true today. Anyone can be "published". PCs provide the tools for self-authorship. The internet provides a ready audience for self-publication.

Thus being "published", having created a work, does not promise status as an authority, the way it used to. As such, it is only just, and right, and responsible, that people who publish their works in this way present their credentials. Work that is not supported by authority should be rejected (Note, I am using "authority" in the scientific sense, not the government sense).

When people do not present their credentials, it is only just and right and proper that the market for these works seek those credentials independently.

And when people discover that the "authors" of works are not authorities, and have no credentials, it is the duty of those people to inform the rest of the audience of this fact.

Would any of us allow a doctor without qualifications to go unhindered? Would we leave a fake policeman unexposed? Would we look the other way while a con-man herbalist tricks cancer sufferers into handing over their money for false promises?

I would not. Never. I would expose those people for what they are, without remorse, without sympathy.

This is what MarkyX has done with the "Deniers Speak" video. He has drawn down the curtain and revealed the little weedy man behind the wizard. He has exposed the charlatans, who feast on human misery like some kind of ghoul.

I applaud his work, and I applaud the work of everyone else here who has worked tirelessly to battle this wave of ignorance.

May the whole world see these miserable peddlers in paranoia for what they truly are.

The consequences of the truth are the burden of these people, and they alone. May they reap what they sow.

-Andrew

ETA. Okay, I ranted a little... but the sentiment remains.
 
Last edited:
Most. Arrogant. Email. Ever.

I love the part where he accuses me of making a crapload of money out of this because I slapped my webcomic banner on it (it's on the same server. Bandwidth ain't free).

He talks as though the US court system assumes the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

And what's "self-riteous". Are we a cult, now ?
 
so... debunkers do not need to address any problems they might have in that realm? Ah yes I see, it's much more pressing to spend energy on showing what stoopids these Loosers are.
Brumsen, I've asked many CT'ers what problem exactly they have w/ the official NIST reports. Specific problems, please give the report and page number. And guess what - none has ever been able to do so. All we ever get is a generic "the official report is a joke" type response or a classic moving the goal post tactic such as "well did they match up all the plane parts serial numbers w/ the maintenance records".

So I'll ask you - what exactly do you think is wrong w/ the official NIST reports?
 
Last edited:
From the e-mail MarkyX received... one thing stuck out...



:eek:

You need evidence to be proven innocent??? :confused:

I'm frightened.

-Andrew
Exactly - jurys can only find a defendant guilty or not guilty. They don't ever declare innocence, and for good reason.
 
I heard an interesting story today, a guy was telling me about a concrete "wall" he had built out of old A/C compressor pads put up on end. These are usually a couple of inches thick with wire mesh or rebar in them.

He was burning some old wood trash (yes, still legal in many parts of missouri) in front of the wall. After awhile he started hearing these pops and bangs (like an m80 according to him.) At first he thought it was the wood, but after the fire burned down he notice the fronts of the concrete had exploded off exposing the wire mesh. He figures the metal heated up very quickly and basically blew the fronts of the pads off.

Anyone know if this is common in building fires where there is a concrete floor, especially when a flammable liquid is poured on the concrete? I'd be curious if this happened on floors in the WTC that were on fire.
It's called "spalling", and when it happens rapidly, as is common in a fire, it makes loud pops and bangs. NIST has a section in their WTC fire test reports observing spalling and the associated noise.
 
As Gravy knows, I've only just started dipping my toes in this whole controversy.
I had a small question about the box cutters. Can anyone tell me where I can find the phonecall transcripts where the passengers and/or the flight attendants stated that the terrorists had killed/stabbed people. I've found the Betty Ong transcript, but I was wondering if it was mentioned on the other flights (united 93 specifically) also. Google is such a mess to wade through.
Thanks!
 
Most. Arrogant. Email. Ever.



I love the part where he accuses me of making a crapload of money out of this because I slapped my webcomic banner on it (it's on the same server. Bandwidth ain't free).
The U.S. is on trial??? WTF?!?

Sounds like this ******* just finished a couple of 101 courses at community college to me.

let me be the first to tell you that nepotism is a major American and human theme. The phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is perhaps the most true phrase I have ever heard.

meaning
Let me demonstrate how educated I am by reducing the motive behind the 9/11 conspiracy to a phrase I read in my sociology textbook which, like, totally blew my mind.
 
Put the thermite in a container. Twist the container 90 degrees and attach the bottom of the container to the side of the vertical column.:boggled:
Well, if you close the lid tightly enough while it's vertical, won't you trap the gravity in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom