Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
...

OK, i FINALLY am caught up in this thread; having found it after it already contained 50+ posts, it's taken me sometime to reach the end!

firstly, THANK YOU to those of you who have done such excellent research! it's BEYOND REFRESHING to see people on the internet who actually require evidence! i've been the SOLE SKEPTIC on many boards concerning this 9/11 conspiracy BS, and it just gets OLD being thrown 375 claims every five posts that amount to circumstancial evidence at best, and are not supported by ANY evidence.

secondly, regarding a possible loose change refute video, I WILL GLADLY DONATE FUNDING!! i'm also planning on starting a couple websites that tackle all this 9/11 crap, especially loose change, and i'd love to have permission to make use of GRAVY'S refute (which i would likely add to, with permission).

AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL!!

take care,
anthony.
 
Quick thanks and tip-of-my-hat to Gravy. This is a long thread and although I do believe that what I think is true, someone could come along with some bunk and get me to turn my head for a minute. Gravy's links were just the thing to remind me that thinking and reason remain alive. I will now try to go and read the last 500 posts on this topic.
 
The Pentagon tapes. Why have they not been released? I have read this thead but I can't recall the answer, if one ws given.
Surely they can't show any top secret information?
However, after reading this thread, it wouldn't make one jot of difference to the paranoid conspiracy types.
 
sat556 said:
The Pentagon tapes. Why have they not been released? I have read this thead but I can't recall the answer, if one ws given.
Surely they can't show any top secret information?
Click to expand...

If these tapes were Pentagon cameras they could be released. I have seen no evidence that any other Pentagon cameras were able to view the crash area.

If they were cameras from other private sources (a 7-11 is often cited), then just because they were confiscated does not mean that the government owns them. Releasing them would mean legal coimplcations about income derived from private property. Look a the fairly recent legal matters surrounding the Zapruder Film for an example.
 
^varg said:
OK, i FINALLY am caught up in this thread; having found it after it already contained 50+ posts, it's taken me sometime to reach the end!

firstly, THANK YOU to those of you who have done such excellent research! it's BEYOND REFRESHING to see people on the internet who actually require evidence! i've been the SOLE SKEPTIC on many boards concerning this 9/11 conspiracy BS, and it just gets OLD being thrown 375 claims every five posts that amount to circumstancial evidence at best, and are not supported by ANY evidence.

secondly, regarding a possible loose change refute video, I WILL GLADLY DONATE FUNDING!! i'm also planning on starting a couple websites that tackle all this 9/11 crap, especially loose change, and i'd love to have permission to make use of GRAVY'S refute (which i would likely add to, with permission).

AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL!!

take care,
anthony.
Click to expand...

Thank you as well and welcome Anthony.

I would like to point out that it is for people like Anthony that I am argueing with the CT nutters.

I am aware that people like Roxdog, Alek, and Geggy are essentially cultists who will never change their beliefs about anhy conspiracy. They will only refine and obfuscate so that they can continue to believe.

But their aggressive antics are like a disease. Without countermeasures they can infest otherwise ordinary people. Without countermanding facts, those people can come to beleive in the crazies of theories.

JFK assasination was a lesson to me. I used to buy the whole 'horde of snipers, none of whom was Oswald killed JFK' nonsense. I heard only one side of the story. Then I read a bit more and found out a rather disturbing fact:

Conspiracy theorists lie.

Sure, the government , plays coy, isn't fully forthcoming, and sometimes outright lies. But they are rank amatuers compared to the outright malicous liars that conpiracy theorists are.

Conspiracy theorists would have us beleive:

Skyscrapers are immune to fire.

A tent is a tarp to hide missile parts

Planes can be easily remote controlled to fly in circles, but a trained pilot cannot do this.

Planes flying low at top speed cannot crash.

All buildings are built the same way and thus will stand or fall given the same disaster circumstances.

Any sound heard in a fire is a deliebrately placed bomb

Enough explosives can be placed to bring down a tower in about 15 minutes.

A chunk of grey stuff with rust color and rebar is cooled molten metal

That molten metal was found on the cleanup cite

That the WTC metal was hauled off to china and destroyed before anyone could examine it.

etc, etc, etc.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Well, we all saw the other two planes hit the WTC, and the difference in the thickness of the atmosphere on the 80th floor or so and the ground is pretty negligible.

I think what the CT's "expert" was saying was that vortexes and wind shear and whatnot would push the plane back up in the air as it approached the ground. (Sort of like Douglas Adam's secret to flying: "Throw yourself at the ground and miss.")

This, I think they were arguing, would have made it extremely difficult to hit an exact spot. I'm pretty sure these difficulties would have been familiar to the hijackers, though, having worked in simulators. Even crude ones like Microsoft's Flight Simulator did a fairly good job of re-creating the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Well, there IS something called "ground effect", which basically reduces the drag on an airplane within a wingspan or so of the ground. But it doesn't push it back up into the air, it just reduces the drag. It doesn't affect the controllability of the airplane at all.

Ground effect can make it difficult to land at a particular horizontal spot on a runway. It doesn't affect at all the ability to make the wheels start rolling on the ground at that point. You'll just be going too fast.

Somewhere way back up the thread, I'm sure I pointed out that all you have to do to collide with something is maintain the same relative bearing with it until the collision occurs. Ground effect doesn't affect that.
 
Holymarymotherofsufferingjeebus I finally finished making changes to my "Loose Change" critique.

I made a ton of changes since the version I posted a couple of days ago. More info, more pics, easier to read, etc. I can't even tell you how much more work the whole thing was than I had anticipated. CurtC has been good enough to offer his hosting services, so I hope you'l thank him. I'll post a link here when I'm sure it's ready.
 
Thanks to CurtC, and most of all thanks to you, Gravy and others who've chipped in. I've been very impressed with the meticulous way the CTers' arguments have been dealt with.
 
Gravy - I hope you can make a .PDF version available - it will make distribution easier.

Thank you for what you've done, and to Delphi ote for starting this to counter the Losers.
 
60hzxtl said:
Gravy - I hope you can make a .PDF version available - it will make distribution easier.

Thank you for what you've done, and to Delphi ote for starting this to counter the Losers.
Click to expand...

I'll be glad to send you a pdf, but there's an issue with pdfs and web links. You can either preserve the document formatting or the links, but not both. At least that's with the latest version of Acrobat for Mac. There may be a 3rd party workaround for PC.
 
Gravy said:
Holymarymotherofsufferingjeebus I finally finished making changes to my "Loose Change" critique.

I made a ton of changes since the version I posted a couple of days ago. More info, more pics, easier to read, etc. I can't even tell you how much more work the whole thing was than I had anticipated. CurtC has been good enough to offer his hosting services, so I hope you'l thank him. I'll post a link here when I'm sure it's ready.
Click to expand...
Sounds great Gravy!

BTW, the free weekly paper here in Chicago - the Chicago Reader - gives free classified ads for non-profit endeavors. Maybe we could advertise the url there when it's up? Perhaps other cities have similar newspapers.
 
WildCat said:
Sounds great Gravy!

BTW, the free weekly paper here in Chicago - the Chicago Reader - gives free classified ads for non-profit endeavors. Maybe we could advertise the url there when it's up? Perhaps other cities have similar newspapers.
Click to expand...

I wonder what category that would come under? Services: Debunking?
 
If you're still around geggy, let me dissect your logic, because I really don't understand it:

geggy said:
Some of you misunderstood. I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project
Click to expand...

So why all these links to real "normal" implosions of buildings you posted?

geggy said:
I'm saying it was done differently and uniquely for the towers
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge this was a unique event, as in "unprecedented".

geggy said:
to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling
Click to expand...

But the towers did collapse from the top, so of course the top looked like it was falling.

geggy said:
as if the structure of the building was failing.
Click to expand...

It wasn't??? uh... let me requote that one...

geggy said:
to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling as if the structure of the building was failing
Click to expand...

I think I've reached my limit in understanding the English language. To me, this makes no sense. Can you rephrase that one for me geggy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom