Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
chipmunk stew said:
Gravy, your work is making the rounds.
This thread was started today at Loose Change:
a complete LC2 debunk
It has a link to your work that points to two mirror sites in Germany.
Click to expand...
Cool! I've been told by various people hosting it that it's been downloaded several hundred times. It's also good to know that the LC forum isn't banning people who link to it. You've been a big help in getting the word, out, Chipmunk.
 
geggy or Xraye:

Are you aware of anyone who is refuting the official version of the events who have based their refutation on anything other then watching the events on video?

1. Have any of them been directly involved in the investigation?
2. Have any of them directly analyzed the debris or other evidence?
3. Have any of them interviewed (and have supporting documentation of the interview), any of those involved with the official investigation?
 
chipmunk stew said:
dubfan, I see you've been posting on this thread. Would you mind letting "Terrorcell"know that there's an html version of Gravy's work? (It's in my sig)
Click to expand...
Hey, that's nice! Kept most of the formatting, too. Did you do that, Chipmunk, or is that CurtC's?

See, geggy, you can read it inline now, or you can download the indexed version. Facts are so close!
 
dubfan said:
Done.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

He took the coward's way out: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3983&view=findpost&p=4336201
Since I found a blatant lie right off the bat I'm not even going to bother......




The Lie :

QUOTE Good move. But the suggestion that [Lyman Lemnitzer] was removed for submitting this plan is misleading. It certainly didn't endear him to McNamara and Kennedy, though, and when his term ran out he was transferred to Europe to become the head of NATO.



The Truth :


QUOTE At the request of President-elect John F. Kennedy, McNamara agreed to serve as Secretary of Defense of the United States, a position he held from 1961 until 1968. He became president of the World Bank Group of Institutions in April of 1968, retiring in 1981.



http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/McNamara/mcnamarabio.html



I would suspect the whole thing is full of similar lies and I'm not wasting my time on proving so if one can be found immediately.
Click to expand...
Seems his reading comprehension skills are lacking, too. What his quote about McNamara has to do with Lyman Lemnitzer is beyond me.

dubfan, you're doing so well over there. Would you mind setting him straight? And remind him of his bold statement that he'd "be more than happy to debunk it"?

Much obliged.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit late with some of this.

Fireproofing. Please do not use this word. The correct term is fire protection. Nothing can be fire proofed, but it can be protected so that it survives for a limited period in a fire. The use of fireproof implies that it will last indefinately. It wont.

Smoke colour. This can be affected by the oxygen level, but is more likely in a large fire to be influenced by the material burning. We had a large (enormouse) fire a an oil depot north of London in December. There was a pall of black smoke extending into France. There was plenty of access for oxygen in that fire.

Dave
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Gravy, someone on that thread criticized your "10 takeoffs and 13 landings" comment (and then said he/she went no further with your work because of it) due to your ignorance of touch-and-go practice. That may be something to consider.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That was meant to be a humorous comment. It started out as a bowling analogy. It certainly does invalidate the rest of the document.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
So, they're saying that even if everything in Loose Chain (v1 or v2) is debunked, as long as it makes people ask questions, it's a good piece of work? :jaw-dropp

Is it physically painful to be that mind-numbingly stupid?
Click to expand...
See, Arkan, "Loose Change" has made you ask a question!
 
Gravy said:
You mean that you can't view the site at all? That doesn't sound right. I'm banned but I can view the site. If there's a cookie issue, your web browser's help menu will tell you how to reset cookies. Cookie settings usually range from "Never ask" (accept all cookies) to "Never accept," (which you don't want).

p.s. I hear that mentioning my critique is a bannable offense there, so watch it!
Click to expand...

Not at all. I can get to invisionfree, directory and all. It's when I try to go to the LC forum that I get the above message. Since I was banned, I haven't even be able to read what others have written there. Frustrating, but very telling.
 
Well the United 93 movie forums have been taken down... again!

But I've managed to make myself somewhat infamous among the whackjobs with my "Death to Dylan" post that has been copied and pasted to the LC forums: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3962

Do I get a cookie or something for getting a post onto the LC boards without actually signing up?

Edit: w00t! I can post links now! Where do I go to post links to girl/girl pr0n?

Edit 2: Crap! I forgot about the "good mormon boy" thing, where do I go to post links to pictures of carebears?
 
Last edited:
chipmunk stew said:
dubfan, you're doing so well over there. Would you mind setting him straight? And remind him of his bold statement that he'd "be more than happy to debunk it"?

Much obliged.
Click to expand...
Good Lord!
I forgot to include my disclaimer on the critique:Warning, contains facts, logic and English grammar. May not be suitable for idjits.



edited to indicate my astonishment that people can so willingly display their idjitcy in public.
 
Last edited:
Ugh. I hate the vapid Sarlac of stupidity that is the Loose Change forums. But its good to see Dubfan doing well there, and that they all seem to be defending LC by saying Gravy's document is 'full of lies'. Well that proves it then!
 
Gravy said:
Fair enough. That was meant to be a humorous comment. It started out as a bowling analogy. It certainly does invalidate the rest of the document.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with making the 10/13 comments? Gravy, what you said (both v1 and v2) is hilarious. It makes me chuckle to myself everytime I think of it. Have the loosers got come kind of justification for it now?
 
kookbreaker said:
Ugh. I hate the vapid Sarlac of stupidity that is the Loose Change forums. But its good to see Dubfan doing well there, and that they all seem to be defending LC by saying Gravy's document is 'full of lies'. Well that proves it then!
Click to expand...

Man, if my english was any better I'd like to go over there and give him a hand.

It's funny how our friend Roxdog is accusing Dubfan of asserting motives behind Jones' university, and yet they all make alot of assertions about Bush's politics and motives.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
Gravy, someone on that thread criticized your "10 takeoffs and 13 landings" comment (and then said he/she went no further with your work because of it) due to your ignorance of touch-and-go practice. That may be something to consider.
Click to expand...
Consider? What's wrong with the comment? I used to fly planes, way back in the '70s, but even way back then we had touch-and-go practice. If you count the "touch" as a landing, you'd have to count the "go" as a takeoff!
 
Dave_46 said:
Fireproofing. Please do not use this word. The correct term is fire protection. Nothing can be fire proofed, but it can be protected so that it survives for a limited period in a fire. The use of fireproof implies that it will last indefinately. It wont.
Click to expand...
Which is actually probative regarding the '75 fire. In that fire, the gypsum wallboard began intact. There would have been 1-hour rated walls including appropriate wallboard in most places and 2-hour rated walls in others (per NYC fire code1). There is no such thing as an "aircraft collision-rated" wall. On 9-11 one can reasonably posit that at least some of the wallboard would have been torn away. The same would be true of the ceiling systems.



1: In fact the Port Authority was exempt from the New York City Fire Code. That said, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't enforce its basic elements of compartmentalization, which are simply restatements of industry standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom