• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the LC forum:
There is a picture of a larger cruise missile on a stand, painted in AA livery (undoubtedly photoshopped.) THAT would be a better picture to support the cruise missile hypothesis. Can anyone find that photo illustration?
Click to expand...
87904469fb3b4d1e6.jpg
Shhh! PLEASE don't anyone tell them that it's an art project, not a cruise missile!
 
dubfan said:
Tonight at 9:30 was supposed to be my big debut on Roxdog's show. I asked him last week for details (what we were going to discuss specifically, who else would be on, and what number to call), and he has yet to reply.

They're all atwitter over there now about the Pentagon videos that will be released at 1PM. Dylan went way out on a limb and predicted the videos would show a "silver blob".
Click to expand...
I applaud you for being willing to put up with Roxdog's tactics. From how he behaved here, and how he behaved towards me on the LC forum, he doesn't seem to be a decent person.
 
I've been checking my mail for days now. When am I going to get paid for shilling for the government's official 9/11 story? Tell those in Globalist accounting to cut me my check already. Neo-con apologists got to get paid.
 
senorpogo said:
I've been checking my mail for days now. When am I going to get paid for shilling for the government's official 9/11 story? Tell those in Globalist accounting to cut me my check already. Neo-con apologists got to get paid.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but we have to pay you in herring. Don't ask, its complicated.
 
geggy said:
first squib going off the allow the top to fall without toppling over and break into pieces.

second squib ejecting to allow the portion above to fall without toppling over and break into pieces
Click to expand...

Are you making this up or do you have actual evidence that that's how controlled demolitions work?

geggy said:
click on pic to play video of witnesses account of hearing bombs
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

geggy said:
September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Doesn't explain anything.

geggy said:
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]
Click to expand...

He's a JOURNALIST, not an expert in engeneering. Irrelevant.

geggy said:
July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]
Click to expand...

What is that? Not evidence of a controlled demolition!

geggy said:
Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though.
Click to expand...

Is this geggy talking or are you quoting FEMA? Or are you quoting someone else talking about FEMA's report? If FEMA isn't drawing to this conclusion, so how can you say they have evidence that there were explosives used. Who says there is such evidence in the first place. Please provide exact quote and info on who is saying what!

geggy said:
Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences
Click to expand...

Selected by whom? Who is this paragraph from? Are you an expert in metallurgy geggy?

geggy said:
Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
Click to expand...

Too stupid to comment.


So basically you have no evidence of a fake-collapse-from-the-top-style-controlled-demolition. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I have been working for the evil Fed gov for 23 years now, I get paid every two weeks deposited directly to my checking account. You must have submit the wrong forms at your training at the Haliburton Conspiracy Camp.
 
Gravy said:
On the LC forum:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/87904469fb3b4d1e6.jpg[/qimg]​
Shhh! PLEASE don't anyone tell them that it's an art project, not a cruise missile!
Click to expand...

This thing looks like it's made of fibre-glass!
 
Pardalis said:
Really, is this true?
Click to expand...

Consider the source:

...for what it's worth - you're the only person outside of my lawyer
and myself who knows this: the video is getting released to us TOMORROW.
that's right. i might have to fly to DC to get the CD and figure out
the file format.
Click to expand...

They're stringing themselves along by the nose.
 
milesalpha said:
The picky historian is back,

To be accurate the technology did exist well before Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had only added wooden fins to their torpedoes for the attack. Pearl Harbor was based on the similar British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940, which proved the viability of shallow water torpedo attacks. To me, the important fact to remember is the nature of the navy leaders of virtually every nation at the time, they still believed in the big gun platform, the battleship, as the primary capital ship. There were few proponents of carrier warfare by 1941 (including Nagumo, leader of the Japanese strike force). Even fewer believed it would be possible to strike a base such as Pearl Harbor with any effectiveness. Now we could believe this was a conspiracy or we could simply believe that the admirals were not very forward thinkers, as history has so often proven (i.e the Allied use of tanks in 1940 was straight out of WWI, conspiracy or stupidity?).
Click to expand...

The US made many, many blunders in WWII, especially in the early months. The only reason they weren't wiped off the map is that they had much greater resources than their enemies, AND they learned from their mistakes.

One of the stupidest policies during the war was plugging in replacement soldiers to keep the "head count" constant during combat. This replacement soldiers were never able to fit in and were often killed almost immediately. German troops, on the other hand, just let the unit keep fighting with reduced numbers until they couldn't operate effectively any more, then the entire unit was pulled to be reorganized and to train with fresh troops.

Where did the Germans learn this? From a study commissioned, then rejected, by the US military.
 
aggle-rithm said:
The US made many, many blunders in WWII, especially in the early months. The only reason they weren't wiped off the map is that they had much greater resources than their enemies, AND they learned from their mistakes.

One of the stupidest policies during the war was plugging in replacement soldiers to keep the "head count" constant during combat. This replacement soldiers were never able to fit in and were often killed almost immediately. German troops, on the other hand, just let the unit keep fighting with reduced numbers until they couldn't operate effectively any more, then the entire unit was pulled to be reorganized and to train with fresh troops.

Where did the Germans learn this? From a study commissioned, then rejected, by the US military.
Click to expand...

The really sad part is we kept the same policy through Vietnam.
 
geggy said:
[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg[/qimg]

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
Click to expand...

How can you tell it's accellerating from a still photo?

You got skills, man!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom