Loose Change - Part IV

[Gravy]

Heres an easy question for those who have been at this a while: Why the hell is the movie titled "Loose Change"? I have wondered this a few times but never felt like expending the hassle of looking, and the 2 seconds on google I spent before this didn't answer it. So I figured I would throw it to you guys.

They've given several different versions of how the movie was named, none of which made much cents to me.

They can't even get the story of their TITLE straight.

 

[Brainache]

That would be on their off days!

I would love to see it. Much a coward I believe , he is!

So where does Skeptik Overlord hang out? I'd like to see this guy's work.
Although I generally think that Overlords are overrated.

 

[Gravy]

Continuing the military theme, i'm reminded of a funny compilation that made the internet rounds years ago. It consisted (supposedly) of excerpts from British Military Officer Fitness Reports. My absolute favorite was

"His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity."

What's that got to do with 9/11? Well, when I'm observing the deniers at Ground Zero, I think of that quote all the time. They are a jaw-droppingly peculiar bunch.

It was just Abby and me today, and we kicked ass, with some help from John Law. The deniers are already nuts, but with each visit we make, they become more frustrated and nutty. Sorry if anyone was there and missed us. The deniers were late and there was a jackhammer festival going on near the usual gathering place. I should have given you my cell number. WE DO NEED YOUR HELP.

Abby had made up her own detailed pamphlets, and I had my flyers, signs and evidence book. When we moved in to tack our signs up above their laminated posters, the deniers once again tried to physically block us, while a small crowd looked on incredulously. I loved it, because there's no better way for the public to know what the deniers are about than to see them denying us the same Constitutional rights that they were exercising.

As that was happening, two dark vans with dark windows pulled up and disgorged two squads of NYPD's finest, dressed in full battle gear, with helmets, flak vests, automatic rifles, and an attack dog. Sorry, deniers, although you accused us of bringing them, they were not there for you. These squads are common sights at high foot traffic areas in New York, such as GZ and train stations, especially when terrorist threat levels are high. Guess who else was with the cops? An NYPD Intelligence Officer, wearing a suit. A MIG! (Man in gray.) Woo Hoo! A paranoid conspiracy nut's wet dream!

Abby explained to the MIG what was going on, and he chose to enforce the U.S. Constitution. The deniers were told to stop denying our rights, and for good measure they were told they could not display their big banner, because NYC law states that the poles supporting protesters' placards and banners must be made of nothing more sturdy than cardboard tubing. This was entirely a technical, "screw you" judgment by the NYPD, as the banner was being held motionless with its poles on the ground, and presented absolutely no danger to anyone. The intelligence officer was acting within the law, but applying a zero-leeway policy to the deniers, which is understandable. The cops detest what these people are doing. Most of the deniers harrumphed and complained loudly, and a few shouted at the cops, which as we all know tends to make armor-encased cops on a hot day more sympathetic and lenient. The dog was licking its chops. As a great dog lover, I know they can smell lying weaple (weasel people).

The result was that our job was made much easier. The deniers didn't spread out as usual, They didn't tear our signs down or shred our literature as they did last week, and we were free to focus on distributing our pamphlets. Despite their numbers, he deniers are at a big disadvantage there. They blow through pamphlets, handing them to everyone who will take them, including to the foreign tourists who comprise about half the crowd. Those 75 year-old Mexican ladies? Probably not gonna be kickin' it troofer stylee on 9/11, but the deniers must put pamphlets in their hands. Excellent. We only have to give our literature to the people who seem interested in the denier's arguments.

A small victory: not only did Les Jamieson fork over beer money to make good on the bet he lost (I'm drinking a Liefmans Goudenband now...hell yes I am), he actually printed new pamphlets to correct that one error! I was shocked. Only 64 errors to go! (Okay, I didn't count them this time.)

On the whole the deniers were more subdued than usual, and they have learned to fear the formidable Abby. The majority of the crowd was very sympathetic to us. There were a few tense moments between the deniers and an irate man who had lost two FDNY buddies at the WTC.

Some of the odder encounters:

One of the dumber deniers told people, on three different occasions, that my flyer couldn't be taken seriously because it had no pictures on it. Honest.

One of the most paranoid deniers, the one who said last week that he could see into my evil soul, today said to me, almost under his breath,
Do you have water?
Sorry?
Do you have water?
Yeah, right here. Do you want some?
I mean at home.
At home?
Water bottles. You know about the pandemic? It's on the government's website.
Oh. Uh, the government does post recommendations for dealing with different emergencies. I have some water stored at home, but only enough for a minor emergency. I have a "go bag." with some supplies, a respirator, not much. I suppose most people aren't prepared for a major disaster.
Yup. The pandemic, Human-to-human. You know there's a nuclear war coming.
'Kay. I should get back to work.

At the end of the day, there was a full-blown screaming freakout by the most tightly-wound of the deniers, a tiny nervous wreck of a woman who even the crazy deniers say is beyond redemption. She's the one who last week demanded that I answer a question, then immediately threatened to have me arrested if I answered. Today she claimed that she was slapped by a woman she was haranguing (inside the no-haranguing zone, which extends 25 feet from the GZ fence), and that two cops were standing right there and witnessed the whole thing and did nothing about it. Some of her fellow deniers admitted that nothing could be less surprising than her getting slapped. I didn't see the alleged slap, but there were two cops standing right there, and they did eventually threaten to arrest her if she didn't stop screaming obscenities. The freakout lasted 10 minutes and attracted a crowd of a few hundred. The funny part was when deniers kept trying to calm her down, but repeatedly couldn't get her name right.
"MY ****** NAME IS SHEILA!" (or whatever it was). She is credit to the cause.

The deniers cannot, will not, and do not, answer questions or produce support for their claims when asked. Ever. Only a couple of them can listen to a complete sentence of mine. The others will not listen, read, or look at anything I present to them. Ever.

In a few hours, I heard dozens and dozens and dozens of claims by the deniers (some of them can really rattle them off). Not a single one was true. They did not say one true thing to the public.

It's a tragicomic experience I wish every debunker here could have. It's one thing to parry and thrust on the internet, quite another to see their breathtaking dishonesty and intellectual torpor in person. You might wind up following them anywhere, but only out of curiosity.

 

[gumboot]

On the contrary, probability is evidence and often strong proof.

You have a strange understanding of "proof". He had to hit The Pentagon SOMEWHERE. To claim wherever he happened to to hit it was SPECIFICALLY the EXACT locaton he INTENDED to hit, is nothing more than pure speculation. You have absolutely no evidence WHAT SO EVER to support this claim. Thus your process of logic is utterly flawed from the outset.

Have you seen any of the quotes about how poor a pilot he was? If he had one, he shouldn't have.

ONE instructor said he was AVERAGE and couldn't land. ONE. Months before 9/11. They don't just give commercial licenses out at random.

Precisely my point. Simplicity of a theory may simply be incompleteness. The theory has to explain the facts. The official story doesn't explain many of the facts.

Such as?

Did I say anywhere that that anyone in our government was knowingly dying for the conspiracy?

Yes. You claimed an alternative theory of equal simplicity would be for the government to do what the terrorists did. They terrorists killed themselves in order to complete their mission. Ergo, if the government did the same, government employees would have killed themselves.

In any case, does it really insult those in Iraq to point out that they are participating in aggressive war, a fantasy of conquest of our neocon elite who never had to go to war themselves?

It insults them to suggest they'd happily sacrifice their lives in an effort to attack the country they have sworn to protect. If you cannot comprehend how grave an insult this is perhaps you should talk to a few veterans to find out. We have a few on this board. Ask them how keen they'd be to ram a commercial American Airliner full of American citizens into an American building also full of American citizens.

I won't speak for them, but I can tell you now I would NEVER do that to New Zealanders. Never.

I suppose I should have inserted something to indicate sarcasm in my statement. Or perhaps I should have made a serious statement: "Our air security was paralyzed." Of course, the official story doesn't give any kind of reasonable explanation or accounting for the paralysis of our air security during 9/11.

In what way was America's air defence "paralyzed" on 9/11?

Quick question: What does the 9/11 Commission's Report say in Chapter 1 about the possibility of fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base intercepting the approaching AA 77? (Not to mention any one of the bases near the path the plane flew.)

You do realise that the fighter squadrons at Andrews AFB are national guard units right? You do realise they were no on duty that day, right?

Also, I assume you realise the only mention the 9/11 Commission Report makes of the Andrews AFB fighters is to say they were airborne at 1038 with open rules of engagement.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least. However, were those who sabotaged investigation the moles?

You don't understand what a mole is do you? The CIA thought he was working for them! He wasn't. He was planning the African Embassy bombings the entire time. And after the bombings he was arrested.

Then how is it that they were promoted and rewarded? The officer who sabotaged Colleen Rowley's case was Marion Bowman, who was later given an FBI reward for exceptional performance.

Colleen Rowley's request for a search warrant was refused because there was no legal grounds for allowing it. Under FISA regulations at the time it was rejected. That's one of the reasons for the "Patriot Act".

This was a quote from the prefix, page xvi. That includes investigating what happened... ...How much money were they allocated? How do those answers compare with the Commissions investigating the two space shuttle disasters.

The Public Statement of the 9/11 Commission indicates clearly that their objective was to uncover how the USA failed to prevent the attacks.

Under Findings:

We recognize that we have the benefit of hindsight. And, since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them. What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government before 9/11 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot.

The Statement continues to outline the details of their findings re: the government's failure to delay or prevent the attacks.

As I have said before, the criminal investigation into the attacks was carried out by the FBI.

Thanks for conceding that the government's reluctance was unacceptable. But it was only understandable if 9/11 was an inside job. The Bush Administration was operating in coverup mode ever since 9/11 occured.

Nonsense. The FBI was already investigating the attack itself. If they were worried about covering things up it would be the FBI investigation that they derailed. The 9/11 Commission Report was specifically trying to identify what failed in the US Government, allowing the attack to happen. Naturally as a government you'd be worried about that.

In fact, if someone were to ask me what kind of evidence would convince me of the official story, I would demand the following as a bare minimum:

1) Evidence that the 9/11 Commission was formed at most a month after 9/11, and initially allocated at least one hundred million dollars.

How does not doing this prove the offical story wrong?

2) Evidence that NORAD got fighter jets up near the hijacked planes within twenty minutes of the first sign of something going wrong for each plane. And after the first plane hit the North Tower, the fighter jets did everything possible short of shooting down the hijacked planes, to prevent them from hitting their targets. (Notice that I didn't require actual shooting down. I understand a strong reluctance.)

See above...

There's a clue there. Were they really suicidal religious zealots?

Yes. They were.

No, just a majority of the victims there were construction workers.

No, they weren't. There was no construction going on. It had finished.

You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.

...do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? If you followed my link you'd see the rest of the victims either were not listed with rank, or were civilian employees (half of the Pentagon's employees are civilians).

The 126 victims were those working in the ground floor open-plan office of the Naval Annex. As MANY people have said, the extra protection installed in this section prevented immediately collapse of the upper floors, allowing everyone outside the immediate impact area to escape safely.

The only reason thousands died at the WTC was because the aircraft impacts trapped a large number of people above the impact site.

Figures from NIST NCSTAR1-7 page 120.

Let's take the total who died:

2,749

Of those, 1,974 were trapped above the impact point.

That leaves 775. Now let's take off the victims from the aircraft:
775 - 87 - 60 = 628
Then take out those killed outside the buildings:
628 - 18 = 610
Remove the emergency responders (weren't any at Pentagon)
610 - 421 = 189
Divide by 2 (2 Aircraft at WTC, 1 at Pentagon)
189 / 2 = 94.5

So for 126 to die at the Pentagon is about right.

Once again. It's was not under construction. The office was fully staffed.

-Andrew

 

[Dog Town]

So where does Skeptik Overlord hang out? I'd like to see this guy's work.
Although I generally think that Overlords are overrated.

At above topsecret. It is a bunch of basement dwelling Cters. Rarely worth the effort. MIB, etccc....yada..yada.....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/118/pg1/srtpages

It does no real work. Other than give, well thought out, enlongated drivel. While trying to act superior, because he started the joint.

 

[WildCat]

It's a tragicomic experience I wish every debunker here could have. It's one thing to parry and thrust on the internet, quite another to see their breathtaking dishonesty and intellectual torpor in person. You might wind up following them anywhere, but only out of curiosity.

You have got to videotape some of these encounters and put them up on youtube or some such site for those of us 1,000 miles away!

 

[Kent1]

A note to all, the new book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" is now out at Barnes and Noble.

Gravy your debunking guide link is on page 164 www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Continuing the military theme, i'm reminded of a funny compilation that made the internet rounds years ago. It consisted (supposedly) of excerpts from British Military Officer Fitness Reports. My absolute favorite was
What's that got to do with 9/11? Well, when I'm observing the deniers at Ground Zero, I think of that quote all the time. They are a jaw-droppingly peculiar bunch.

It was just Abby and me today, and we kicked ass, with some help from John Law. The deniers are already nuts, but with each visit we make, they become more frustrated and nutty. Sorry if anyone was there and missed us. The deniers were late and there was a jackhammer festival going on near the usual gathering place. I should have given you my cell number. WE DO NEED YOUR HELP.
<snip for brevity>
It's a tragicomic experience I wish every debunker here could have. It's one thing to parry and thrust on the internet, quite another to see their breathtaking dishonesty and intellectual torpor in person. You might wind up following them anywhere, but only out of curiosity.

As always, your efforts, and those of Abby (and every here for that matter), are appreciated more than can be easily voiced. I continue to be amazed at the way (the collective) you go above and beyond to try to counter this claptrap. Thank you!

 

[Dog Town]

Gravy, Abby, and crew! You are heroes to us on the left coast. Again, If any y'all come this way, I got your back! Thank You for all you do, Here there , and elsewhere!

DT

 

[gumboot]

It was just Abby and me today, and we kicked ass, with some help from John Law. The deniers are already nuts, but with each visit we make, they become more frustrated and nutty. Sorry if anyone was there and missed us. The deniers were late and there was a jackhammer festival going on near the usual gathering place. I should have given you my cell number. WE DO NEED YOUR HELP.

Awesome work guys.

Sounds like they have truely lost it.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

You may have noticed that your numbers don't add up to over 100. Many more victims were killed. The most I will concede is that the construction was nearly complete and they began moving people in. Fewer than 1000 persons were there, as oppose to many thousands in the other wings.

I don't know the exact number of people who were in wedge 1, but why "concede" anything when a few minutes of Googling can provide a number of specifics?

The renovation of Wedge 1—the first of the five structural wedges to be renovated—was just five days short of completion and most of its occupants had moved back in; Wedge 2 had been vacated in preparation for the renovation work soon to begin on that segment.
Civil Engineering Magazine, Nov. 2001

According to Pentagon renovation manager Lee Evey, about 80 percent of the Wedge One workers had returned to their offices. That sector of the building, therefore, potentially housed about 3500 workers that day.
Architecture Week, Oct. 3, 2001

Earlier I asked what you think happened to flight 77 and what you think hit the Pentagon. I'm interested in your ideas.

 

[Gravy]

A note to all, the new book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" is now out at Barnes and Noble.

Gravy your debunking guide link is on page 164 www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Crazy!

 

[Brainache]

Gravy I have nothing but admiration for you and your friends confronting a group of what sound like complete loonies to me.
I wish I could join you, but I live in Australia.
I hope you watch your step around those people, some of them sound like they could get a bit dangerous.
All the best.
Andy.

 

[Dog Town]

You have got to videotape some of these encounters and put them up on youtube or some such site for those of us 1,000 miles away!

Yes please! I wanna know what to look out for. Kinda like a certain ethnic driver! I don't mean my great grannie, though she does scare me, 102 years old! Cherokee and all!
They love the WOOOO Wooooo! However, I Do Love her to death!

 

[chacal]

Yes, these stories of the adventures in GZ are interesting to read. I would like to see few pictures of the truthers too. Or even video.

I visited GZ with Google earth but didn't see any truthers. They were obviously edited out as part of the cover up... yeah

 

[Kent1]

Another interesting point in the book is the famous Jones"red hot steel" photo
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

The books states that this may be glass. But the point seems moot anyway. One expert suggested some of the steel could of melted anyway in the rubble pile because of the insulating effect.

 

[Dog Town]

Stevie
Why is he doing this to himself? Fleeting infamy?

 

[Kent1]

Loose Change is lambasted for its use of (AFP) as a source.

American Free Press of course known for its anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. Page 106 is devoted to this.

 

[JamesB]

More brilliance from Dylan Avery:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10418

no, sir, actually we love facts. it's why we do this. facts like, you know, the melting point of structural steel being significantly higher than the melting point of jet fuel.

 

[Gravy]

Glass! What an intriguing idea. I never, ever considered it, although I've spent a good deal of time in glassblowing studios and have held some of that inch-thick WTC glass. 43,600 windows in the towers.

Eta: I have no idea of the melting point of that glass. Glass varies very widely in that respect.