• 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.
Sun Zoo @ Loose Change: "Bottom line..."
Click to expand...
Am I the only one amused by constructions such as "end of story," "case closed," "bottom line," as well as the emphatic, "period" when discussing this topic?

Petulance: you've gotta earn it, bucko!
 
I am having a little trouble with the picture analysis over there--you know, where he claims the plane is too long to be United 175--Gravy, is there any good rebuttal or professional photog that can help? I am also going to try the BAUT, they have some semi-pro photographers there.
 
Hutch said:
I am having a little trouble with the picture analysis over there--you know, where he claims the plane is too long to be United 175--Gravy, is there any good rebuttal or professional photog that can help? I am also going to try the BAUT, they have some semi-pro photographers there.
Click to expand...

The few picture "analyses" I have seen fail to make any allowances for the angle of the plane as compared to the camera. They all just assume that the plane is magically 90 degrees from it and proceed accordingly. Maddening.
 
Sun Zoo's closing paaragraph in his latest post. I near broke down laughing.


"Now for anyone who's tempted to post and say simply "I don't believe in the pod" because you think that believing in the "pod" is uncouth, or that the consensus has already formed about this within the 9/11 truth movement on-line community, that there is no pod, save it, alright?
We're not looking for "opinions" here. This is a search for truth, based on clear eyed analysis and reason, taking the entire rational framework and all phenomenon and information, including everything that's been presented so far, into consideration."
 
milesalpha said:
"[...] based on clear eyed analysis and reason, taking the entire rational framework and all phenomenon and information, including everything that's been presented so far, into consideration."
Click to expand...

Could someone ask Sun Zoo WTF he's talking about?

What a waste of human intellect.
 
Last edited:
Tirdun said:
Methinks he's slipping into a skeptic's lab coat while tucking his magic wand into a drawer.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a magic wand he's holding, although I have heard it called that before...

You know, I seriously wonder about statements like his.

Is he actually being rational, but just starting with a different (and incorrect) set of axioms?

Does he think he's being rational, but not understand what rational means?

Is he being irrational and just trying to gain the veneer of rationality?

There might be some interesting psychology in here, if anyone's needing a thesis topic :)
 
I guess geggy's theory of amnesia is from the frontal lobe trauma caused by our hand slapping our forehead in disbelief.
 
I'm rereading Sun Zoo (with my hand to my forehead). Have you noticed he's talking to himself?

Sun Zoo dialogue:

"But Sun, how can you prove no one was aboard that plane?"

Because it was not flight 175.

"Then what was it?"

A reconfigured and re-engineered military variant, of the Boeing 767, almost CERTAINLY a Tanker Transport or something very similar, for maximal global psy-op "shock and awe" viewing horror.

"Why?"

To create a plausible suspension of disbelief as to the cause of the near free fall total destruction of the twin towers (plane strike and fire).

"So this "theory" or proof as you call it, relates to the proof that the buildings were brought down in an intentional demolition by explosives, and NOT as a direct result of the plane strikes and fires?"

Yes, very much so. You see, if it can be proven well beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that the buildings did NOT "fall" (explode) as a result of the plane strike and fire, then by an extension of logical, deductive reasoning, the observations about this plane (proportion, anomalies), what it does, and what it produces must be examined in a totally different contextual frame of reference.

"That makes a lot of sense Sun."

Yes, it certainly does, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Scary
 
Last edited:
I like this bit: "the observations about this plane (proportion, anomalies), what it does, and what it produces must be examined in a totally different contextual frame of reference."

In other words, "fantasy world contextual frame of reference":

Thus, I've concluded that the "flame/flash" was in fact a FAE (fuel air explosive) warhead missile, firing in just ahead of the plane for the plane to meet up with, head on, as it impacted and penetrated into the building.
Click to expand...
 
Huntsman said:
He obviously has not seen a FAE explode (although I wondered how long it would take for someone to mention FAE's after my earlier postings).
Click to expand...
He apparently hasn't even seen the test crash videos in "Loose Change."
 
Can't see how the losers have not gotten into the Anthrax issue, post 9/11.

I'm hoping they can solve that one with the same vigor they've put into this.

Maybe it's time to plant that spore in a LC forum. . .
 
Pardalis said:
I like this bit: "the observations about this plane (proportion, anomalies), what it does, and what it produces must be examined in a totally different contextual frame of reference."

In other words, "fantasy world contextual frame of reference":
Click to expand...
Ah, Post Modernism, the first refuge of the reality-impaired pseudo-intellectual. All theories are equally valued (except for the "official" version of course) and all "evidence" must be interpreted as just another social narrative.
It's only a matter of time before someone says that Al Queada may have been behind 9/11, but it's OK, they where only committing mass murder ironically.
 
brodski:

Waiting for the 9/11 as an artistic expression argument, huh?

I still wonder about the psychology behind some of thse ideas. I'm interesting in finding out where the disconnect with reality occurs, and whether the CTers act differently/come up with different theories depending on where the problem is.

For example, one who starts from incorrect axioms (ex: "The government is lying."), would seem to come up with the most obviously silly stuff (there were no planes!! It was preplanned!! The government paid people off!!).

The one with faulty logic would seem to be more prone to the ad-hoc stories (Yeah, you could see a plane, but it was really a missile disguised as a plane...")

And the ones that know they're being irrational would make movies and sell them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom