9/11 Loose Change vs Pop. Mechanics

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

let's be clear here.

the article you cited is not judicial watch, who solicits the government for this info.

the radio interview was conducted by alex jones, who for better or worse is a bulldog on his issues / questions and will frame a debate slanted to his point of view. not that he claims otherwise, he doesn't.

but ferrell / judicial watch and prisonplanet are not even close to the same organization.

jerome corsi is another example of a recurring guest on the radio show, he's involved with judicial watch, mostly with the border issue and the north american union - but alex jones always ends up confronting him on his iran views by the end of the interview.

prisonplanet.com is a site i frequent but it is important to remember where that organization stands on the US government. they don't 'demand' anything from the government. they investigate and report, but you won't find them in the white house press club.

Okay fine. It's just semantics. I don't know anything about these organizations. The point is that the head of Judicial Watch says this:

"Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised," said Farrell in describing the tactic of creating a honey pot. He agreed that we should expect to see clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon released soon.

Like which way can this go here? I thought they wanted to see proof, but if they do get proof, well then that is proof is just a "honeypot" or a diversion. How can anything be proven if the proof is just evidence of some other sinister plot?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay fine. It's just semantics.

agreed.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Like which way can this go here? I thought they wanted to see proof, but if they do get proof, well then that is proof is just a "honeypot" or a diversion. How can anything be proven if the proof is just evidence of some other sinister plot?

this is the huge trap, people will always debate information released from official sources.

this is also why i don't bother with the pentagon at all. any info released five years after is questionable at best.

honestly the whole idea of FOIA is interesting but when you chase the government on something that elements of it want hid, don't expect a silver platter.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

This 23 seconds is pretty interesting, looks like the "center column" of steel falling at a different rate and breaking apart. Don't think if it was a controlled demo that would happen.

the major heavyweights of the 'MIHOP' 9/11 investigators like jim fetzer of st911.org contend that the towers came down with a non-conventional demolition, that the 47 core columns were weakened before the collapse with a series of explosions at the base and other blasts (reported by firefighters and audio clips), some of them cut, and the buildings blown apart floor by floor in quick succession.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Also if it was a controlled demo, it would have taken a huge amount of explosives and some serious planning. Not to mention all controlled explosions start from the ground, just like the 911 mysteries video shows, not 80 stories in the air right about a hole made from a plane.

this wasn't a 'standard' demolition is the contention. simple as that. it would take many explosive charges, absolutely.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Having watched some of these demolition shows the demo companies seem obsessed with the wires and are always rechecking the connections. It would be tough for them to guarantee to Bush the buildings would fall as perfectly as they did when their lines could be cut from the planes they had no control over even if they did know exactly how and where the planes would hit the building.

wireless control could be used. something like the SCADAPACK or any number of PLC-based wireless controllers. i work in industrial automation and it would be very easy, just not the standard way they do it. wired is more reliable, and it's the way they've done it forever.

as for bush... something tells me he wasn't directing this show, in anyone's version of events.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't see much in those videos either, but I looked up this Judicial Watch and I found this:

Farrell conceded that his organization could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...6moretapes.htm

They accuse the government of flim-flam, but what do you call that? That is a problem I have with all this. They demand to see those Pentagon tapes, and if they are released and prove the official story, then that just means they have something else to hide. Where can it end?

The concept of the honeypot is a real good theory, but there are no indications of this happening. The government has been cornered on the issue enough and has been beat up on the whole issue. The timing has been more thyan perfect for the release. The government likely would have released the information if they had it. A honeypot operation is only so effective for so long. By not releasing what they have, under emense pressure, does not make much sense. Especially with the trickle of information coming out. The time for that sting is past IMO.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by photon

They're experts in marketing I guess. The closest term I can think of after watching those videos and watching those two is "Religious Zealot". 45 seconds of watching those two was enough to know any reasonable discourse is impossible.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/vid...r_20061012.wmv

the same could be said of the 'other' side of the debate.

when you paint an entire 'side' of a debate with this many separate voices with one brush, you lose the entire point.

oh, these loose change guys aren't debating their side to good effect.

case closed!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

Here is a much better production over that of Loose Change. Taken from a pretty neutral perspective and tries to focus on the oddities and the accepted explanation rather than building an elaborate conspiracy of every theory out there. Its worth the watch.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

Here is a much better production over that of Loose Change. Taken from a pretty neutral perspective and tries to focus on the oddities and the accepted explanation rather than building an elaborate conspiracy of every theory out there. Its worth the watch.

I don't have time to watch the whole thing, but in the first eight minutes they do some rather strange things. First off, they use old footage of that DeMartini guy, who died on 9/11. "I believe the building could withstand multiple strikes...". Okay, well the simplest explanation for that could be that he was just wrong.

Then they show some graphic of the building withstanding 140 mph winds and the narrator says "the single impact of a jetliner was no more of a blow than the continued battering of a hurricane". Says who? If you are going to say that, how about a little evidence?

That bit about the firefighters is supposed to be evidence of what? They specifically say they are on the 78th floor. So they could see two isolated pockets of fire from where they were on the 78th floor, but the suggestion (backed up by the narrator) is that there are two isolated pockets of fire in the entire building. Is that what she is getting at? That is the way I took it.

The strangest part is the comparison to a wood fire, which doesn't make sense, and they say that all that black smoke means there aren't a lot of flames, but as they are saying that, they are showing footage of flames -- of the building on fire.

I have no doubt that we don't have the whole story here, but that is not very convincing.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't have time to watch the whole thing, but in the first eight minutes they do some rather strange things.

Man, I sooooo gave up on Tolstoy. When he didn't have me after the first eight pages of War and Peace I know it was going to be a crap book.



There's part of the problem with this whole issue. There are those that "don't have the time" to read a book (or 12) or watch a series of films/documentaries, yet they have the idea that they have the whole story. I'm not picking on you Rouge, but crap like that ****es me off. The dittoheads do that garbage all the time. They talk about crap they have no comprehension of, and then when challenged on it they say, I really don't have anything to back it up, but I heard it on FoxNews! Makes me wanna puke.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Looger

so... do you have a history of positively contributing to threads?

seriously, what's your take on the issue at hand?

have you checked out any of the evidence raised or just let <unnamed poster> blast the loose change debunking link like always (even when loose change wasn't ****ing mentioned!!!)?

seriously, what have you to say of the debate in the link?

It happened as advertised. The vast majority of evidence and simple logic backs this up. Plain and simple.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Man, I sooooo gave up on Tolstoy. When he didn't have me after the first eight pages of War and Peace I know it was going to be a crap book.



There's part of the problem with this whole issue. There are those that "don't have the time" to read a book (or 12) or watch a series of films/documentaries, yet they have the idea that they have the whole story. I'm not picking on you Rouge, but crap like that ****es me off. The dittoheads do that garbage all the time. They talk about crap they have no comprehension of, and then when challenged on it they say, I really don't have anything to back it up, but I heard it on FoxNews! Makes me wanna puke.

haha, Lanny thnks he's reading Tolstoy!

hahahahahahahaa

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

haha, Lanny thnks he's reading Tolstoy!

hahahahahahahaa

What the heck are you talking about? That made no sense whatsoever. Lanny was sarcastically implying that to quit something because the beginning is difficult isn't the best way to go about something. Did you forget medication or something?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It happened as advertised. The vast majority of evidence and simple logic backs this up. Plain and simple.

i see.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

What the heck are you talking about? That made no sense whatsoever. Lanny was sarcastically implying that to quit something because the beginning is difficult isn't the best way to go about something. Did you forget medication or something?

I'm sure all of us would appreciate these debates more if the personal side would not become involved. Why not leave White Doors alone...or if you can't stand him or his posts..ignore him?

That way we don't have to deal with seeing his replies when you feed fuel to the fire.

Fair enough?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

but I heard it on FoxNews! Makes me wanna puke.

But Lanny how can we all compete with your and your family connections?

When you knock all the facts, information, related information and history all down with that debate point. All we have left is FoxNews.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm sure all of us would appreciate these debates more if the personal side would not become involved. Why not leave White Doors alone...or if you can't stand him or his posts..ignore him?

That way we don't have to deal with seeing his replies when you feed fuel to the fire.

Fair enough?

Uh... did you read what he posted? How do I get admonished for my post but he doesn't for his? He was clearly taking a pot shot at Lanny (personally) and did not contribute to the thread, so why are you telling me but not him? Naked double standard on your part, obviously.

If you don't like the thread, take a hike... take your own advice and quit whining.

[Looger]

...back on topic, sorta:

another new film, 'improbable collapse':

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73566596731782

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm sure all of us would appreciate these debates more if the personal side would not become involved. Why not leave White Doors alone...or if you can't stand him or his posts..ignore him?

That way we don't have to deal with seeing his replies when you feed fuel to the fire.

Fair enough?

Now why would anyone want to take a shot at White Doors? Hmmmmm, I don't know? Because he has never added anything of value to any thread he's been in? He and HOZ are the drive by King and Queen (they alternate depending on whose pitching and catching). Frankly, I applaud when people call idiots like these two out. Boards are self-policing, and if we allow the drive by idiots to continue unabated, we only assist in derailing threads where some actual discussion may take place. These two only do this because they DON'T have the capacity to argue the points being considered. They are both too lazy, too close minded, and too stupid to do the research and challenge their predispositions. You don't like it when you get lumped in with them, but when you defend their actions the way you do, you are guilty by association.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003

Here is a much better production over that of Loose Change. Taken from a pretty neutral perspective and tries to focus on the oddities and the accepted explanation rather than building an elaborate conspiracy of every theory out there. Its worth the watch.

Remarkable production....opened my eyes to some of the true science that they present and the improbabilities of the "official" story.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Uh... did you read what he posted? How do I get admonished for my post but he doesn't for his? He was clearly taking a pot shot at Lanny (personally) and did not contribute to the thread, so why are you telling me but not him? Naked double standard on your part, obviously.

If you don't like the thread, take a hike... take your own advice and quit whining.

Because most of us have him on ignore...and you keep quoting him...over and over again.

The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them...I think numerous Mods have pointed that out already.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Now why would anyone want to take a shot at White Doors? Hmmmmm, I don't know? Because he has never added anything of value to any thread he's been in? He and HOZ are the drive by King and Queen (they alternate depending on whose pitching and catching). Frankly, I applaud when people call idiots like these two out. Boards are self-policing, and if we allow the drive by idiots to continue unabated, we only assist in derailing threads where some actual discussion may take place. These two only do this because they DON'T have the capacity to argue the points being considered. They are both too lazy, too close minded, and too stupid to do the research and challenge their predispositions. You don't like it when you get lumped in with them, but when you defend their actions the way you do, you are guilty by association.

Is that why you put White Doors on ignore Lanny? Would that be the same reason I ALSO put him on ignore?

You make some good points...but come on...save us the grief of having to read the posts.