This forum is full of cowards!!!

[Ducky]

You realize that "radio" doesn't actually mean broadcast radio in this instance, right? That it's an internet streaming audio? What, functionally, is the difference between something on a public internet site such as this one and going on streaming audio (or submitting audio) to him, besides his ability to edit out what he wants prior to broadcast or bleep out someone during broadcast -- something the available evidence suggests they have no hesitation to do on the Loose Change site?

Yeah. in explanation this was posted by TheQuest:

Neither of you have proven yourself worthy of an unbiased opion to my knowledge.

Sounds like that Troy guy with his perfect proof of God forum.

"You have demonstrated you are not a true conspiracy-theorist, as a true conspiracy-theorist would not question my arguments for a conspiracy-theory. Banned."

 

[Hagrok]

You know, that's almost like a web forum where every member is a troll.

 

[WildCat]

In addition to delphi_ote in a separate thread, now WildCat, LordoftheLeftHand, and kookbreaker have been singled out by the Loose Change forum's go-to man, Roxdog.

Aww, they noticed lil' ol' me?

They have a thread there about how Flight 93 (the one which crashed in PA) really landed in Cleveland, w/ waaaay more people in it than it had than it took off. Which is proof that the planes that hit the WTC landed, offloaded their passengers onto Flight 93, and then flew into the WTC w/o any passengers. These people make moon landing hoaxers, alien abductees, and believers in pyramid power look rational by comparison.

 

[Mid]

It's getting madder over there, from Roxdog:

This article debunks nothing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

This is not an "inferno"...

THIS IS AN INFERNO....

I'm sure there's some saying about fire and smoke, I just can't quite remember how it goes.

Still on second thoughts a jumpo laden with jet fuel the best it could do would be to start a waste paper fire, as shown by the first picture.

 

[WildCat]

It's getting madder over there, from Roxdog:



I'm sure there's some saying about fire and smoke, I just can't quite remember how it goes.

Still on second thoughts a jumpo laden with jet fuel the best it could do would be to start a waste paper fire, as shown by the first picture.

That's funny, because I completely debunked that fire (the Madrid Tower) in this post. Turns out that building was supported by concrete, not steel, and that the steel portion suffered a complete collapse. Hell, you can see the steel in a state of complete failure in the pic he posted! I tell you, these people aren't the brightest folks around. Go get 'em, Roxdog!

 

[WildCat]

It's getting madder over there, from Roxdog:



I'm sure there's some saying about fire and smoke, I just can't quite remember how it goes.

Uh-oh, I think that's a black helicopter in that WTC pic! Holy crap, they're onto something!!!

 

[hellaeon]

uhhhh its not worth the time

its easier to let them gradually realise that they are nobody's in a world of somebodys and that the government does not give an iota about them apart from the taxes they pay and the laws they follow.

I do want to sign up, but the discussion level is pretty poor. Lots of swearing and such, no actual intelligence. Im reminded of the movie and book 'lord of the flies'

cheers

 

[Manny]

that the government does not give an iota about them apart from the taxes they pay ...

Actually it looks like at least some of them are also devotees of the 861 scam, too.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

The guys over there are too funny. Someone mentions that eye witnesses report that there was a 200-foot tall hole in the south side (the side towards the twin towers) after they fell. So some brainiac named OCMARK post a picture of the north side as proof there was no hole:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&view=findpost&p=2769113

When called on that, he then does post an undated photo of the south side that is obviously from before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (appears it was taken from WTC1)...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&view=findpost&p=2774077

 

[Belz...]

...or at least, so says some dude on the Loose Change forum:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413

Hummm...

To collapse faster than freefall means there is some force in addition to gravity that's either pushing or pulling it to the ground. Explain.

Some sort of explosives would do the trick nicely

 

[elaine]

I came into this a bit late here, sorry, but I'm a little confused. What part about the two planes I watched crash into the towers (from my vantage on Fulton Street) didn't really happen?...

.

Obviously, "they" implanted the memory, Duh

 

[chipmunk stew]

I don't mean to add fuel to the stereotype of kookiness, but some of them are just...


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1470

 

[Graham S1]

oh dear. there is a lot to do.

so... prove to me here, that 19 arabs compromised a trillion dollar defence system. the sort of proof Condoleeza Rice promised us before the invasion of the Middle East, but we never actually got. Anyone remember the broadcast she gave about that? I do. Anyone remember her presenting the evidence? Nope, not me.

and prove to me building 7 wasn't intentionally demolished.

 

[De_Bunk]

I dunno...


1. It happened..

2. People died...

3. Consequently, Iraq got a good slapping which it thoroughly deserved...


DB

( PS...BTW...How many big conspiracy theories have actually been proven...??? )

 

[kookbreaker]

oh dear. there is a lot to do.

so... prove to me here, that 19 arabs

What do you require? The Saudi government has admitted that 15 of those 19 were their own children. Do you reject that?

compromised a trillion dollar defence system.

Designed to do what?

the sort of proof Condoleeza Rice promised us before the invasion of the Middle East, but we never actually got. Anyone remember the broadcast she gave about that? I do. Anyone remember her presenting the evidence? Nope, not me.

and prove to me building 7 wasn't intentionally demolished.

Do you have any clue as what is required to demolish a building? I seriously doubt it.

 

[De_Bunk]

Someone go over there and post that the Moon landings were fake...and a UFO really crashed at Roswell...

That should keep them all occupied for the next couple of years...

DB

 

[aggle-rithm]

and prove to me building 7 wasn't intentionally demolished.

Several other WTC buildings WERE intentionally demolished because of the heavy damage they incurred. So why would they have to stage a catastrophic collapse to cover up the demolition of WTC 7? Why not just condemn it, put an armed guard around it, and demolish it at their leisure along with the other buildings?

If the answer is "I'm not sure", then it will make us question your reason for believing it was demolished in the first place.

 

[DrMatt]

Mmm, okay. Yawn-time.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you have any clue as what is required to demolish a building? I seriously doubt it.

I think dropping a 110-story building nearby would do the trick nicely.

 

[Checkmite]

Why not go over and debate? Because there's no reason for it. The "official" story is fairly set, and corroborated by enough evidence to make it mainstream. The CTs are offering an alternative which strains credibility at the very least - an alternative which simply doesn't have enough weight behind it. This is primarily because the majority of their "evidence" come from people watching a video and opining about what they're seeing. The controlled-demolition theory probably sounds very convincing, until one considers the practical implications such as the kilometers of wiring and tons of explosives that would have to be "smuggled" into the WTC without being noticed, installed and left in public places without anyone giving a second thought, or how the plane crashes themselves managed to not set off any explosives before the "scheduled" demolition time, or why those plane crashes themselves (tons of steel at 200MPH) couldn't have weakened the structure enough to make "burning jet fuel" simply more sauce for the goose, rather than the primary destructive force. I could go on, but I've given the CT more dignity than it deserves.

There is no need to counter the CT claims, because they aren't good enough to be given the consideration necessary. They are an exercise in frivolous speculation, based on the assumption that a "qualified" engineer, or anyone else, can simply look at a video taken from some distance away and know exactly what's going on inside the buildings and out of sight.