Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
One original CT web site gets online, other CTers see this and start their own sites, all w/ the same info as the first. This goes on at an exponential rate, until there are a million web sites supporting the CT, giving the CTer a million sites to do "research" on. Of course, they all have the same info as the original site, but every copycat site confirms the reality of the theory for the True Believer.
Click to expand...

Yep. They all just reference each other (like a lot of the anti-vaccine stuff, actually).

I'm keeping an eye on the Chertoff/Chertoff stuff, since it'll be interesting to see if that continues to get play or if they accept the debunking. I'm guessing we'll still be seeing 'they're cousins' for years to come, even if both Chertoffs hold a press conference and produce the birth and marriage certificates of every member of their families. That'll just be evidence of a coverup, of course.
 
dissonance said:
Yep. They all just reference each other (like a lot of the anti-vaccine stuff, actually).
Click to expand...

That and Steve Jones.

"Have you seen the Brigham Young report that shows that it was a controlled demolition? They make some very interesting points."

blah
 
Pardalis said:
I tend to agree with geggy on this one, a still picture can be misleading as to when exactly it was taken. It is inconclusive.

But this video on the other hand is ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that all hell broke out in WTC7.

http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
Click to expand...

For me this movie really does it, and it certainly shut up the Loosers on their forum when they said there was no convincing video of an inferno in WTC 7. It's a big download, 28 mb. Starting at 2:58, there is a very claer, very hi-res look at the smoke billowing out of nearly every floor. I used a screenshot from it a few pages back.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/7wtc_plusrubble.mov
ETA Aah, after all that the link is dead. Good thing I downloaded it. I'll sell you a copy, geggy.
 
There's a difference between taking this picture, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg, and jumping the gun and saying "FEMA manipulated their facts!", and looking at it objectively. It doesn't particularly convince me as to when it was taken and where the smoke exactly comes from, but I'm sure it wasn't the only piece of evidence FEMA had in their hands to make their investigation. I was just saying this specific piece of evidence is insufficient to make ANY conclusion.;)
 
Who wants to crash their next event in NYC?

im not sure when it is. but i want alot of us to go and just ask as many questions as possible.

OH man, i just heard some guy in the audience of video 1, saying "can you please put the temperatures into fahrenheit, im not smart enough to convert the celsius" hahaha no wonder that guy believes it!
 
Thanks for your hard work, Here are my suggestions and fixes:

Page 6 Para 7: I'm not sure what FEMA has to do with the CT conspiracy, but you might want to put a note here that says the response is covered further on (Page 7 Para 2)

Page 9 Para 4: If you want to expand the Boeing stock details, Boeing had been on a steady downturn in stock value since Oct 2000.
http://tools.morningstar.com/charts/Mcharts.aspx?Country=USA&Security=BA&sLevel=A
This is minor, though, and is somewhat covered by your existing note. If someone could find any info on Boeing during that period, there might be very clear reasons why its stock was down. For example, Northrop Grummund (NOC) was on a steady uptick, maybe Boeing lost a contract?

Page 9 LAST Para: "No, ton" -> "No
Page 20, top image: "hhow" -> "how" in left caption.

Page 20, Para 2: "Who launch" -> "Who launches"

Page 20, Para 4: "pie:ce" -> "piece"

Page 50, last line: "brigt" -> "bright"

Page 98, first line: Fix "its"

Page 29, Bottom picture: I get no picture, says I need a plugin. Not sure if this is a concern or not. This pops up a few more times, pictures requiring some sort of plugin. I would consider changing them all to a single format.
 
geggy said:
Soo what you're saying the FEMA report is based on their own "professional" assumptions and theories? If they're going to write a report, at least they could get their facts straight.
Click to expand...

If I'm writing a report on a major accident involving a Pinto, and I mention the faulty fuel lines, do I really HAVE to mention the odd fact that the windshield seems to have shattered BEFORE impact ? Would that be relevant to the car blowing up ?

geggy said:
The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below.
Click to expand...

You're saying that 20,000 tons of pulverized concrete weighs less than 20,000 tons of solid concrete ?
 
geggy said:
Ha! Another picture that's deceiving. The snoke shouldn't have been shifting sideways. The fire coming from the lower floors shouldn't have ben producing that much smoke, even if it does, the building would've had collapsed sooner. The smoke could possibly have come from the collapsing of wtc 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're not denying that there was an important fire in WTC7.

Look. Several floors on fire:

wtc7-fires-close.jpg


Lots of smoke here:

wtc7-frame-40.jpg


And if you doubt that it was close enough to get damage from the collapse of the two towers:

site1067.jpg


Dammit
 
chipmunk stew said:
Loose Change crew Q&A in Oakland, CA:

Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-810472779099754665

Part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7804575956259210011
Click to expand...

Can anyone confirm that he (Bermas) is actually saying "The people are secondary?" I've listened a few times and isn't perfectly clear. Not that it would be surprising – it's exactly the kind of thing they say. But I wanted to slip that quote into my new critique, and I don't want to get it wrong.
 
Tirdun said:
Page 29, Bottom picture: I get no picture, says I need a plugin. Not sure if this is a concern or not. This pops up a few more times, pictures requiring some sort of plugin. I would consider changing them all to a single format.
Click to expand...
I haven't reviewed the whole thing, yet, but I'm getting a similar message on page 4 that says:

"QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture."
​
on four of the seven images.​
 
geggy said:
Does this mean you will start listening closely to me now?
Click to expand...
Any point you attempt to make will be judged on its own merits. I mean, would you allow someone to try to slip this by you in debate?

Okay, I agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But the Earth is still flat!

I'm going to try and explain my point of view here so bear with my language as I don't speak in physics/engineering technical language. You need to check the beginning of the north tower collapsing. The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below. If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.
Click to expand...
Not one structural engineer in the entire world agrees with you. Doesn't that make you "pause?"
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure you're not denying that there was an important fire in WTC7.

Look. Several floors on fire:

[qimg]http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc7-fires-close.jpg[/qimg]

Lots of smoke here:

[qimg]http://911review.org/images/wtc7-frame-40.jpg[/qimg]

And if you doubt that it was close enough to get damage from the collapse of the two towers:

[qimg]http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1067.jpg[/qimg]

Dammit
Click to expand...

In the close-up picture of several floors on fire. Was that before or after the collapse of either tower?
 
Belz... said:
That's a rather funny question, columbo. How could 7 be on fire BEFORE the collapse ? Or did some flaming material come down onto the building prior to that ?
Click to expand...
I'm just anticipating what geggy's next question would be.
When the planes initially hit, there was some flaming wreckage ejected from the impact and falling out the holes after.
But at what point in the timeline was the picture taken?
 
CptColumbo said:
But at what point in the timeline was the picture taken?
Click to expand...

The WTC7 fire and collapse is a very time-oriented debate. It is dangerous to post these images and not knowing when exactly they were taken, wether prior or after the WTC towers collapse. Because the fires by themselves are not sufficient reason for WTC7 to collapse. The fires and damage caused by plane debris AND the damage caused by the towers collapsing right next to it ARE the reasons it collapsed. My fellow skeptics, there is a danger here of falling into geggy's way of jumping to conclusions.;)
 
Well, I guess theoretically, flaming debris from the first airplane crash could have hit WTC7, but I believe that the damage to it happened only after the North Tower collapsed.

I have a question, maybe someone here is familiar with the videos and already knows this. In some of the videos of the towers collapsing, I have seen these tall skinny pieces left sticking up after the rubble pile passes, and these pieces then start to tip over since they're no longer supported sideways. I've thought that these pieces were sections of the steel core columns that were left behind. I would like to check out the idea that this could have been the North Tower, and those pieces fell to the North, causing the reported gash in the South face of WTC7. It's just an idea, but I've always wondered how far sideways they could have fallen and what they would have hit.

ETA: I guess debris from the second plane crash could have hit WTC7 as well. It would have had farther to go, but at least it was travelling in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
geggy said:
In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.
Click to expand...
Finally!

At last you're beginning to understand!

And all it took was a few seconds LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL FRIGGIN' EVIDENCE.

Now all you have to do is admit to yourself that the reason the top of the tower fell was because the floors below it had been taken out by an aeroplane, and you're cured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom