• 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.
Now this thread is funny! "Why so quiet here?" Sun Zoo asks...

Could it be because you fricking morons banned everyone who didn't drink the Kool-Aid so now there's nothing to discuss?

The depths of their stupidity is bottomless.
 
I had a "truther" claim that we are now in the minority (those who believe the official story). So I did a little looking at the latest "scientific" poll that they are all gone crazy quoting:

Ohio State Poll:

*36% (that is a minority last I checked) of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."*

Now break that down...lets say we just break it down evenly...for sake of arguement. we have 4 variables...(1)Very Likely, (2) Somewhat likely, (3) Participated in the attacks, (4) let it happen.

so breaking down the combinations:

(1) Very likely + Participated
(2) Very likely + let it happen
(3) Somewhat likely + participated
(4) Somewhat likely + let it happen

So give them equal numbers (for arguments sake, as we dont have the breakdown of this available), and you get 36/4 = 9%

(1) Verylikely they participated=9%
(2) Verylikely they let it happen=9%
(3) Somewhat likely they participated=9%
(4) Somewhat likely they let it happen=9%

so really, the REAL believers in an "inside job", could be as little as 9%.
 
Kent1 said:
Implosion World's paper has finally come out.
I can't access the site right now, but here is a link from the LC forum

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10012
Click to expand...

The discussion that this is causing is incredible. The report flatly states that no controlled domo could have happened, there was no molten steal found no evidence or possibility of explosives, and yet the idiots claim foul because not every theory is examined point by point.

It like giving them proof that there is no Santa Clause and they still want to argue about how a fat man can get down a chimney. Unfriggen believable.
 
Oh man that implosion world study is basically the holy grail of debunking the CD theory.
 
Just sent this e-mail to Mr. Roeper. I figure he'll get enough hate mail as is, he might as well know there are some folks on his side...

Sir;

Just a note to thank you for your article in the Sun-Times today, which I
just read on line.

Expect to be violently attacked by the supporters of the Conspiracy theory
who will claim that "If you just WATCH this video/picture/etc., you will
see the TRUTH" (capitalizations are intentional).

I am a member of the James Randi Education Foundation Forums (let me make it very, very clear that I am not an official representative of Mr. Randi nor do I speak for his group--I'm just a fan and a member of the message
board Forum there and my opinions reflect only my personal beliefs.) A number of us have been discussing this topic for weeks now at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64 (don't try to read them, we have literally thousands of posts on this topic). Several of our members have made websites that counter many of the CT'ers opinions. Please feel free to use them if you need ammunition against the furious attacks that your column will probably lead too, if our own experience is any judge.

My best wishes to you in your fight for rational, logical, and true skepical thought.

My best regards,

Hutch (used real name)


The Mecca of resources for debating the 9-11 CT
http://www.911myths.com/

Loose change movie debunked:
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Blogsite that debunks the loose change video:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Video of the CT'ers and debunks:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

The Mecca of resources for debating the 9-11 CT
http://www.911myths.com/


If any of our posters sites were left out, my apologies.

I'll let you know if I get any response.
 
On an even more positive note !Cynthia,'I'll talk my way right outa office", McKinney is getting her bra handed to her, 70-30. OWWWchhh! That has gotta leave a mark.
 
Dog Town said:
On an even more positive note !Cynthia,'I'll talk my way right outa office", McKinney is getting her bra handed to her, 70-30. OWWWchhh! That has gotta leave a mark.
Click to expand...
She got crazy eyes. Like this... :eye-poppi
 
His article is gonna raise the temp! I do like that you started and ended your list with 911 Myths!
 
gumboot said:
Another thing to consider about this 600 MPH figure...

I have serious doubts about a 707 being capable of achieving 600MPH at such a low altitude.

With air that dense I suspect at that speed the amount of lift generated would rip the wings off.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
No. For any wing, there is an angle of attack for which the lift of the wing is zero. Since you can go all the way to zero, then given airspeed above the stall, there's some point where you can reach the lift that just balances your weight.
OTOH, it's probably above the design dive speed, and it's possible that all sorts of fun Mach effects and possible fluttering could happen.
Pulling back hard on the yoke could pull the wings off, but that's generally true anywhere above maneuvering speed.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
thats exactly what IW says in the letter

but dictionary.com says "dynamite" so the those "so-called" experts must be lying LOL
Click to expand...

I wonder how hard it would be to petition dictionary.com to change their definition to the correct one. CTers would go off the deep-end if that happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom