Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Loose Cannon of 9/11 (Loose Change)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:16 AM
Original message
The Loose Cannon of 9/11 (Loose Change)
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 09:16 AM by cal04
How a 23-year-old Army grunt-turned-film producer is undermining the 9/11 Commission Report with $8,000 and a laptop.

It took two governors, four congressmen, three former White House officials and two special counsels two years to compile. They reviewed over two and half million pages of classified and declassified documents, consulted 1,200 sources in 10 countries, and spent over $15 million of the taxpayers' money in the process. And on July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued its final report on the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Is it possible that two twentysomethings from "a small hippie town that time forgot" could undermine that entire effort with $8,000 and a laptop?

Yes, if you ask ex-Army specialist Korey Rowe. The 23-year-old from Oneonta, New York returned home from two tours -- one to Afghanistan, the other to Iraq -- to help his best friends, Dylan Avery (director) and Jason Bermas (researcher), produce the sensational 80-minute, Web-based documentary "Loose Change," which seeks to establish the government's complicity in the terror attacks by addressing some very tough questions: Why wasn't Ground Zero treated like a crime scene? How did both towers "free-fall" to the ground "in 9.2 seconds" in just under two hours? And where are the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175?

While the film is admittedly flawed and draws on some dubious new media sources, including Wikipedia, it's inarguably sparked a new interest in the "9/11 Truth movement." Since its April 2005 debut online, "Loose Change" (the first and second edition) has received over 10 million viewings, it was just featured in the August issue of Vanity Fair, and the final cut of the film is expected to debut at the Sundance Film Festival in January.

"I've got four movie studios (including Paramount and Miramax) beating down my door to make the final cut," says Rowe, who's now got offices from California to London to handle his growing company. Last week SMITH caught up with Rowe -- who's been labeled everything from a traitor to a CIA operative in the past year -- to see how he went from protecting the Iraqi-Syrian border against Muslim insurgents to a self-described "conspiracy theorist" poised to take Hollywood (and the country) by storm.

http://www.alternet.org/story/40476/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. k and r - good film
recommended for anyone who has swallowed the "official" story of 9/11, with all its omissions, inconsistencies, and outright lies.

The citizens of the United States of America deserve the truth about the traitorous republicon actions that allowed the 9/11 attack to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. its gonna be shown here in Sarnia Ontario, Canada, next week !
thanks to a girl i know who is both a poet and a political activist. i'm very much looking forward to it. and for those you who happen to live in Port Huron, MI, you can simply come to Sarnia on the 30th to see it. show time at the public library auditorium is 7 p.m.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GETPLANING Donating Member (370 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
100. Google Video needs your help
This excellent film is posted at Google Video and is in the Top 100 Videos. It is being heavily freeped to get it off the Top 100. Go to Google Video, click Top 100 Videos, and give it a five star reccommendation. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. I hope the film is out to the public before the elections
And Fitz's indictments, and every weapon the dems can muster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kicking this for 911 truth!
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 AM by mother earth
:bounce: :kick:

No matter what anybody feels about 911, we absolutely do not have all the truth/facts & the 911 Commission was a farce.

God Bless every man, woman and child who demands the truth! We owe it to each and very 911 victim & all those they left behind. Every American should be screaming for justice in their name and ours!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. A friend sent me the link on the internet and I thought it was great!
My husband who hasn't really been able to grasp how 9/11 could have been LIHOP or MIHOP, watched this with me and he walked away saying that he believes that explosives brought down the WTC buildings. My husband is an engineer and he had refused to watch the repeated media images of the buildings coming down because it was too painful to watch since he and I lost 5 friends. But with almost 5 years of healing, when he saw the images and the way the buildings fell and also the the temp's at which the steel and titanium would have had to "melt", he said there is no way, no way that those buildings came down from the planes and jet fuel alone. (PS: in addition to being an engineer, he's a pilot).

Just viewing that movie was powerful enough for my husband who is essentially a person who questions everything to have enough information and questions presented to him to realize something is very wrong in the "official explanations".

I believe that the truth will come out someday and it will be so shocking to every person on this planet. I want justice for my friends who died and for the suffering that so many have had to endure since this awful crime was committed. I used to believe it was the sole action of islamic extremist terrorists. It is much bigger than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. please please only sign with miramax! Paramount will
water it down!!

and boys make sure you have a great lawyer..

don't allow them to water down your work!!

the studio's just sliced and and diced Peter Lance's work...don't let it happen to LOOSE CHANGE!!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yes, I would prefer that..
.. they not use a big movie corporation for distribution.
All that corporations see is bucks, and they will fuck
with a film till it's just a shadow of its former self.

I'd say the film's makers should go an independent
route. Sundance sounds like a good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Miramax would not be good either. They're owned by Disney
Miramax and Disney were the ones that pulled the plug on distributing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/l11 right before the election and forced him to use others to get it out to the theaters then. DO NOT put your eggs in one basket like Miramax. Perhaps look at Lions Gate or something like that who've released other good "indy" documentaries recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. And he's not alone,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
8. THIS IS MUST SEE AS WELL STEVEN JONES BYU PROF
Must watch video of Professor Steven Jones of Physic's from BYU UNIV about 9/11 and Building 7 collapse, and other aspects of 9/11

Professor Jones is a Mormon and a life long republican..

it is approx 2 hours long..but it is imperative for all Americans to see this video!

please pass to everyone you know!



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408...


FLY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Thanks....I'm downloading it as I write! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
75. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #75
109. Critical thought requires not swallowing the first theory that comes
along, hook, line, and sinker.

The continuing failure of the police, the Feds, (FEMA, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission to look for any evidence that doesn't support the so called "pancake theory" isn't science, it's forming a theory and then trying to cram the facts to support that theory.

if you can provide any evidence that any of these inspectors actually made a systematic attempt to test for or search for evidence that didn't support the pancake theory, (such as testing for HE residue, inspection of metal for Thermate/Thermite type substances, or even mechanical tampering with the building structure it would go a long way toward supporting the pancake theory.

Critical thought isn't about ridiculing competing theories. It's about actually looking at competing theories, testing those theories, debating those theories, and then weighing those theories to decide which best fits the evidence.

I have seen posters here who apparently refuse to even read Dr. Jones work and dismiss it, without reading it, as "junk science." That is even close to critical thinking. That's closed mindedness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. There are more competing theories than you have imagined.
I, for one, started a thread a couple days ago with this link, which isn't even a comprehensive representation of the competing theories among the scientists who are experts in the appropriate field. The theories don't vary wildly from Sonar waves to subterranean aliens, but there is reasonable professional disagreement about what most directly initiated the collapses.
The link also includes articles about various forensic testing done on the different kinds of steel used in the WTC Tower's construction.

Face it, the CD steve e jones side of the issue has zero evidence to directly support holding onto his hypothesis much longer than it takes to read his presentation then finish a bowl of Cocoa Puffs. He's emotionally invested in his conclusions, not me. Nor are any authentic critical thinkers.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. Lots of old news there, the last stuff on engineering dates to 2004.
Most of he web page is about the replacement project.

One of the articles states, "We will probably never know what caused the collapse." Now that's taking the bull by the horns.

I also see no work on the "unusual salivation/high temperature corrosion noted in appendix C of the FEMA report. That would seem to be an interesting topic to explore. Perhaps the high temperature corrosion of the steel had something to do with the collapse?

I don't know for sure, but it does seem like something someone might want to investigate.


World Trade Center Investigation "Exonerates" Twin Towers' Design in Sept. 11, 2001 Collapse - a recent interim report says that the structural steel of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was stripped of its fireproofing by debris from the aircraft impact and weakened by the resulting fires, eventually causing the towers to collapse, Nadine M. Post, enr.com, October 21, 2004

I wonder when the final report is due out? It's been almost two years

Columns Likely Failed First in Terrorist-Triggered WTC Fires - the lead investigator of the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Centers destruction concluded that the columns, weakened by fires ignited by jet fuel, failed and triggered the collapse of the twin 110-story towers, Nadine M. Post, enr.construction.com, June 28, 2004

this article is over 2 years old.

Research May Never Pinpoint Sequence of Events on 9/11 - although investigators say their $16-million study may never determine the exact sequence of events that led to the WTC collapse, the most likely scenario is that columns of the twin 110-story towers bulged out and yielded first, as a result of floor trusses heating up and expanding in length, Nadine M. Post, enr.com, January 19, 2004

This says, we don't know we may never know but the most likely cause is the floor trusses heating up and expanding. That would seem to indicate that the steel does conduct heat reasonably well. It's also kind of like saying, no need to study because it's a futile exercise.

I don't know Who Nadine M. Post is, most likely a science writer. She collects researcher's data, interviews them and writes them up. Poplar science is fascinating, but this isn't peer reviewed academic papers.

I'm not sure why you are so upset, gretl, that Dr. Steven Jones is doing research into his hypothesis that planned demolition is a better model than either stripped insulation on columns or expanding floor joist, but for some reason it really bugs you that he would dare to do research in his field of expertise. I'm not positive when Dr. Jones began his research, but I bet it's less than two years ago. The first article has no updates on that site, even though it's described as an interim report.

Oh, yeah, now I remember, it's that Dr. Jones attends a Mormon Temple and holds the Mormon faith. Can't allow him to do research. that would be wrong, for so many reasons.

i'm glad there are a number of people looking critically at what happened on 9/11 and that there is controversy about it. It needs to be looked at sooner than later. I am amazed at the outrage expressed by many on the OCT side that people would actually question this administration on their whitewash cover up of these events. i'm amazed at the attempts at character assassination because someone doesn't buy the OCT. I realize it happens on both sides, but at least from this forum, it seems to be heavily coming from the OCTers directed at anyone who doesn't toe the official line.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. The point I made was on "competing theories".
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 02:38 PM by greyl
You had said: "Critical thought requires not swallowing the first theory that comes along hook, line, and sinker."

I showed evidence that, among professionals in the relevant field there is more than one theory.
I'm using the scientific definition of theory, as opposed to the steve e jones brand of speculative hypothesis.

"for some reason it really bugs you that he{Jones} would dare to do research in his field of expertise."

Where did you get the idea that structural engineering is his field of expertise?


edit: btw, the latest relevant article at the link is dated 8-17-2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #118
121. He's a Phd in Physics. His specialties are
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 10:46 PM by John Q. Citizen
Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy.

Archaeometry is the term given by archaeologists to the application of scientific methods from the physical sciences and engineering to archaeology problems. Radiocarbon dating techniques, remote sensing, and trace element analysis are all classed as archaeometric methods, among others.

Is he barred, in your professional opinion, from doing research on 9/11?


edited to add - What are your academic credentials that make you qualified to judge who and who shoundn't be allowed to do research, form a hypothisis, or investigate what happened on 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #121
122. Stephen Jones isn't barred from doing research...
This is just not his field of expertise. Cold fusion and solar energy are fields that are only remotely connected to the structural properties of buildings. I am not aware that he has published anything in the field of archaeometry apart from one single speculative notice about the visit of Christ to North America.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handste...

There is zero technical or scientific content in this paper. It consists in interpretations of symbols and exegesis of ancient texts. There is no indication that Jones has ever made any use of the techniques you mentioned in your post.

He is free to conduct all the research he wants. You ought not appeal too much to his professional expertise however.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. He's not as smart as some guy who write for Pop Machanics, eh?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy /

Current work in metal-catalyzed fusion

We are currently conducting fusion research involving deuteron and proton beams impinging on various metals, and Z-pinch.



Current work in Archaeometry

Archaeometry conference on May 20, 2006, co-chair


Published Papers
Jones, S.E., et al. Charged-particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.

Abstract
We present evidence for energetic charged particles emanating from partially-deuterided titanium foils (TiDx) subjected to non-equilibrium conditions. To scrutinize emerging evidence for low-temperature nuclear reactions, we investigated particle yields employing three independent types of highly-sensitive, segmented particle detectors over a six-year period. One experiment measuring neutron emission from TiDx foils showed a background-subtracted yield of 57 13 counts per hour. (The neutron experiments will be discussed in a separate paper.) A second experiment, using a photo-multiplier tube with plastic and glass scintillators and TiDx registered charged particle emissions at 2,171 93 counts/hour, over 400 times the background rate. Moreover, these particles were identified as protons having 2.6 MeV after ex-iting the TiDx foil array. In a third experiment, coincident charged particles consistent with protons and tritons were observed with high reproducibility in two energy-dispersive ion-implanted detectors located on either side of 25-micron thick Ti foils loaded with deuterium. Our overall data therefore strongly sug-gest low-level nuclear fusion in deuterided metals under these conditions according to the fusion reactions d + d ? n(2.45 MeV) + 3He(0.82 MeV) and d + d ? p(3.02 MeV) + t(1.01 MeV), with other nuclear reactions being possible also. Important advances were particle identifications, and repeatability exceed-ing 70% for coincident charged particle emissions. Metal processing and establishing non-equilibrium conditions appear to be important keys to achieving significant nuclear-particle yields and repeatability.



Jones, S.E. and J. Ellsworth. Geo-fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.

ABSTRACT
In our 1986 and 1989 papers, we discussed the hypothesis of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter and particularly in the planets. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on geo-fusion research, then to consider an important extension of the cold-fusion idea: cold nucleosynthesis in condensed matter. Cold nucleosynthesis experiments are underway at Brigham Young University.



Jones, S.E., et al. Neutron Emissions from Metal Deuterides. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.

Abstract
We present evidence for neutrons emanating from partially-deuterided titanium foils (TiDx) subjected to non-equilibrium conditions.1 A previous paper presented data for complementary charged-particle emissions. Metal processing and establishing non-equilibrium conditions appear to be important keys to achieving significant nuclear-particle yields and repeatability.



http://www.ancienthistoricalresearchfoundation.com/Page...


On the other hand, we have Debunking 9/11 Myths , With a forward by .....John McCain!published by Popular Machanics


No American living today will forget what happened on September 11, 2001. Each of us will remember how the serenity of that bright morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity, an act so hostile we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it. The realization sank into the hearts of every one of us: America was vulnerable and under attack. On September 11, evil literally took flight.

But as 19 men showed the world their worst, we Americans displayed what makes our country great: courage and heroism, compassion and generosity, unity and resolve. We were united, first in sorrow and anger, then in recognition that we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are--a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, and that people everywhere, no matter what their race or country or religion, possess certain universal and inalienable rights. In that moment, we were not different races. We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries.

We were Americans.

As Americans, we acted swiftly. We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe. We revamped our homeland security, reorganized our intelligence community, and advocated reform in calcified societies.

We did these things because it was clear a new page had turned in history's book. The terrorists who attacked America were clear about their intentions. Bin Laden and his ilk have perverted a peaceful religion, devoting it not to the salvation of souls but to the destruction of bodies. They wish to destroy us, to bring the world under totalitarian rule according to some misguided religious fantasy. Our cherished ideals of freedom, equality, and religious tolerance stand in their way.

more, much more. Read it here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/3491861...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #125
129. Oh no! Jones is very smart!
I never said he wasn't smart! He's a genius! No contest!

Greyl and I were challenging your erroneous claim that his 9/11 research was research conducted "in his field of expertise". That is not so. His fields of expertise are nuclear fusion and possibly also -- as you point out -- the hieroglyphic interpretation of messianic migratory patterns. These fields are only remotely connected to the destruction of buildings.

The Pop-Mech guy? I don't know him. Cannot comment, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
12. and it's total bull shit
and it's total bullshit that has been debunked more thna once....

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html


BTW, the loser who made this film is also one of the "NASA faked the moon landings" crowd. he also gets his jollies making fun of the 9-11 victims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBT0lC77ayA


nice idol you MIHOPer have, nuts, loons, far RW racists, and holocaust deniers......

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. 911 was an inside job
everyone knows
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HongKonger Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. WoodrowFan
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 11:36 AM by HongKonger
WoodrowFan

04:57
July 4th, 2001. Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998, receives medical attention at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he is visited by a local chief of the CIA.

This was reported by the French paper Le Figaro, quoting an anonymous source. The story is unconfirmed. I'm not aware of any evidence at all that this happened.

Wow the domino boy comes out with ample amounts of lame ass rebuttals like this one. Is that your writing?

Ever heard of protecting a source kid? I guess because it is from a French report it cccccccaaaaaaaaaaannnn't be true.

And as for your stream of people you seem to hate that are interested in questioning the government's actions such as ... the MIHOPer have, nuts, loons, far RW racists, and holocaust deniers......

You are showing your own prejudicial savageness by labelling 9-11 skeptics with the likes of the KKK and David Irving et al.

Pathetic.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. MY Prejudice? LOL
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:16 PM by WoodrowFan
sorry tin foil boy, but the MIHOPERs hang out with Holocaust deniers like killtown (who has been banned from here many times under many names) and "no moon landings" kooks like the guy who made Loose Change, not to mention the DUer who sets fire to bunny cages and who thinks that NO planes hit ANY buildings on 9-11. The simple fact is that most of the MIHOPers fav sites like PrisonPlanet, whatreallyhappened, killtown, etc ARE far RW sites. Sorry but you're in bed with Neo-Nazis. Hope you like the stench.

If you think that makes me snotty, well, I'll somehow live with it.

BTW, welcome to my ignore list with the others.

bye bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Henny Penny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
54. The irony...! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. A building knocked down by an airplane would not implode
There is no way on God's green earth that this building feel this neatly as the result of the airplane striking it. There had to be some "help" in making it fall straight down and implode like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. actual engineers disagree with you
actual engineers disagree with you

http://wtc.nist.gov /

But then no MIHOPer yet has ever paid attention to actual facts.

You can stick with the dentist-lady and the senile theologians.

wave bye bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. There are many scientists and engineers who don't believe nist
Why the guilt by association? Why attack the messenger instead of the message. I've never believed that the towers collapsed that neatly.

Take an hour and a half and watch the video. There is a PhD on video explaining what NIST did to produce that report.

First of all, NIST created models of the building and did a simulation. It would not collapse. Then they used computer models and it would not collapse using realistic parameters. They finally made it collapse by using parameters in a computer model that could not happen in real life.

It was BushCo science that produced the NIST report. Decide what your conclusions will be and then doctor the evidence to support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. Absolutely!
Thanks ITMS. Well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
53. What "models of the building" are you refering to?
And on what ground do you claim that the parameters used in the global model were unrealistic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #53
92. Watch the PhD do his thing
I don't have time to teach you physics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. But you have time to spread false rumors? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #94
102. Read the papers instead of calling me a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. The last six letters seem to be appropriate, IMO. ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #102
108. I did not call you a "liar"...
You did not provide this reference (or any other reference) in your last message. How was I supposed to read it? Accusing you of spreading false rumors is an accusation of laziness and gullibility, at worse.

I have read this non-academic opinions piece by Jones already. Others and I have discussed many of the technical issues raised by him. Just search the archives on this board. As badly argued as it is, this paper does not even support your claims. I maintain that you are spreading false rumors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #94
113. It's no false rumour, everyone knows that NIST couldn't get their
own models to fail, at least I should think on this board they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #113
116. No, not everyone here believes this to be true...
This ungrounded claim issues from missrepresentations from people like Kevin Ryan and Stephen Jones who did not bother to look closely (if at all) at what the NIST report actually states about their laboratory tests and computer simulations. I have commented on such issues here in threads you were involved in. You ought to know better.

The poster I was responding to has not yet indicated which models he was referring to. However you seem to be in the known -- so, what models are you refering to, Mirandapriestly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
50. There are a lot of engineers that disagree with the NIST report
Engineers Set the Record Straight on Trade Center Study Results (11/04/2002)
By Nadine M. Post

Engineers have bombarded several media outlets with letters recently in an effort to correct errors in coverage of the aftermath of the World Trade Center collapse. The issue is exceptionally sensitive, they say, because of pending lawsuits against the developer-owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The first incident involved an Oct. 22 New York Times article and its front-page summary comparing a recent engineering report on the collapse to an earlier one. It called the findings contradictory and implied there was controversy and dispute between the two study teams. W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of Construction Technologies Laboratory Inc., Skokie, Ill., and the leader of the first engineering study team, says there is no contradiction between the two reports and no dispute or controversy. "We did not say there was any flaw in the design of the twin towers or that the trusses contributed to the collapse. We said more study was needed." The second report followed up on that recommendation.

The first investigation was a building performance assessment organized by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. The second report was a private study of the destruction carried out for Silverstein Properties Inc., the New York City leaseholder of the trade center.

<snip>

Engineers from the Structural Engineers Association of New York say that errors, innuendo and quotes out of context in the media do a disservice to the public and the engineering profession. They are concerned about the possible impact on a lawsuit filed against the port authority that alleges that design flaws in the trade center led to the deaths of the trapped occupants and firefighters.

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. There is no mention of the NIST report in this article...
And the article dates from two years before the NIST preliminary results were even out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #50
104. Sure there are.
But about anything substantive? Nope. Of course, you'd have to read the trade journals to understand that, and I know it's difficult to do. You're busy, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #104
111. The article I sited in my post above
is from a trade journal but of course that doesn't let that get in the way of your personal insults that have nothing to do with the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #111
117. This article does *not* mention NIST.
And AZCat's post wasn't insulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #111
119. "Google" does not equal "read"
Finding journal articles using google does not equate to reading the journals.

Insulting? Then why don't you use the "alert" button, rather than complaining to the very poster alleged to have done the insulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. did not fall neatly
or implode

go look at the extensive damage to the surrounding buildings. they didnt fall "Straight down".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Compared the the way they should have toppled, it was neat
It looked a lot more like an demolition than an accident.

There is a ton of spin out there about the buildings and it doesn't hold up to an engineering analysis. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to collapse the skeleton of these buildings.

Don't believe me, spend some time watching the video. Email the engineers and scientists and argue with them. A university professor in a conservative state is risking his job to talk about this stuff. Why would he make up this stuff up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #39
57. Doesn't hold up to an engineering analysis?
Please to display actual engineering analysis, rather than speculation of said?

Explanation of methodology would be nice also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #39
59. It was symmetrical and it was the entire building
That is what does not fit the alleged method of "collapse", IMO. and considering only the wtc buildings and, I think, one church were demolished as a result, it was relatively "neat". wtc7 was pretty much in it's footprint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #59
93. Thanks for stating the obvious
If a building falls due to fire or impact, some part of it is going to give first and the building will fall towards the weak spot. It won't disintergrate and fall straight down, at least that is what the dissident scientists and engineers say.

In all three of the buildings at WTC, I guess the "weak spot" was directly in the middle of the buildings. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. Could you name these "dissident" engineers please?
And could you also provide some reference to papers where they argue that the buildings would have fallen differently as a result of fire and impact damage alone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Yes - I would love to see this also.
And no sloppy resources - legitimate journal articles only please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. See post 35 and do your own homework.
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. You made the claim, now back it up.
Good luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Too lazy to look but plenty of energy to argue
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 10:05 PM by ItsTheMediaStupid
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

It's an academic paper with references to the engineers in question.

I'm not spreading any rumors, lies or anything else. Just telling you what I believe and encouraging you to get the courage together to actually examine the possibility that the Neo-cons did it and Bin Ladin is just a patsy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Lazy? Please...
"Lazy" is making an argument and not bothering to back it up. And let's be clear - what you linked to is not an academic paper. This has been discussed before here.

It is interesting how you choose to frame this issue - coupling "courage" with your own viewpoint (of course). It seems to me to require only a poor understanding of physics - it takes no courage to join an anonymous online forum and make arguments with no experience or knowledge of the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #96
123. Wait, since when did your side abide by that?
Or do you consider interim reports academic journals?

How about popular mechanics?

Or is 9/11 myths now considered an academic journal.

or maybe Demolition World?

I have yet to see an Academic journal posted in a thread to counter argument raised by anyone with an alternative theory.

So when did this rule go into effect, and why aren't you holding people who agree with your opinion to the same standards you would attempt to impose on people whose opinion differs with you? Hmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. My "side"?
Don't be pathetic - this isn't a competition. There are no sides.

We were discussing "dissident" scientists and engineers, and the whole reason I need to state this in the first place is because proponents of certain theories have been known to declare out-of-context statements or articles written by soi-dissant experts as evidence of these "dissidents" when upon inspection they fail to fit the bill.

And to your claim of hypocrisy, I must repeat that perception is everything and perhaps you only see what your mind allows you to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #124
126. We were discussing science. You choose to call the
scientists who you don't agree with dissidents, because they disagree with you.

Why don't you require the same level of Journal publication from the people you agree with, as you do from the people you disagree with?

That is my question. It is a fair question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #126
128. I didn't choose the label.
That would be ItsTheMediaStupid upthread in post #93. If you have a problem with the label please address the poster who chose it, and please stop telling me why I do things, especially when you're wrong.

I answered your question - the "truth movement" has been unable to avoid the temptation to link to anything available as "proof" of their claims. I am tired of wading through crap and will reject anything that isn't of an acceptable pedigree. If someone asks me to read something, this is my requirement. It isn't applied, as you suggest, by treating those who agree with me and those who don't differently (as if it was that simple).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #128
130. So you have pedigree standards?
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 01:36 AM by John Q. Citizen
What would those be?

That way I can post to your standards and hopefully convince you of the error of your ways!

Is a Phd in Mechanical Engineering acceptable?

Is a Phd in physics acceptable?

It's tough to communicate when one doesn't have any guide lines as to your pedigree standards. And I haven't seen you call those who agree with you on these standards, though it's quite possible that I've missed it.

I did see you require those mysterious standards of yours to those who apparently disagree with you.

Thanks for your help!

Here's to better communication :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #130
131. His standards aren't so "mysterious"...
He stated them clearly in the message you first responded to:

"And no sloppy resources - legitimate journal articles only please."

PhD's not required. Publications in Physics or Engineering journals would be fine, it seems. I don't suppose he would object to official reports from scientific organizations either.

However, if you want to discuss Jones's, Wood's or Ross's online musings you will find other takers here ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #131
133. Exactly.
A doctorate in a field such as engineering is, unfortunately, no bulwark against stupidity but as long as an article is in a legitimate publication it can be read and commented on by peers. Legitimate publications are generally self-evident and can be from a variety of sources. Industries publish and distribute quite a few, as do government-funded laboratories/research centers, independent societies (ASME, ASCE, ASE, etc), code development organizations (ICC, IAPMO), and there are even some independent ones.

But what JQC fails to understand is that I only get frustrated when asked to read articles from dubious sources. Those posters who I generally agree with aren't demanding (repeatedly, I might add) that I read all this crap. If JQC wants to demand this of the posters responding to him, that's his business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #93
105. I thought Jones was a "dissident"...
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 10:43 PM by Carefulplease
"If a building falls due to fire or impact, some part of it is going to give first and the building will fall towards the weak spot. It won't disintergrate and fall straight down, at least that is what the dissident scientists and engineers say."
(My emphasis)

When challenged to provide some reference to the work of some such dissident engineers you refer to a paper from a physicist who has no qualification in structural engineering and who provides no model, no analysis and no calculation of his own at all. Rather, Jones just expresses some queer puzzlement at the sight of the falling portion of the building that was obscured as it fell into the dense cloud of smoke and dust. He seems to assume that the part of the tower that is hidden from view must have "turned to powder". Apart from that, he makes the very claims you suggested "dissidents" were challenging:

"We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then and this Im still puzzling over this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!"
(My emphasis)

So, who is right, Jones or the unnamed "dissident scientists" he here contradicts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
51. Sorry...
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 06:47 PM by quickesst
They did more or less fall straight down. The towers were very tall, and in that tallness lies an immense amount of material. When they fell, that material could not just pile up into a neat mound. A lot of it had to go somewhere, and just like pouring a handfull of salt out of your hand, it is naturally going to spread outward. As the mass of the towers is somewhat larger and more substantial than a handfull of salt, there is naturally going to be corresponding damage to the building on the perimeter of the WTC area. Thanks.
quickesst

on edit: Some of that damage to other building could also be the result of material being forced out of the WTC by the explosions heard by victims, firefighters, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. Sigh... gravity pulls things straight down.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 01:42 PM by tinrobot
When a building collapses, it's natural tendency is to fall straight down. If there's nothing in the way, that's exactly how it will fall. A tree tips over because the trunk is solid. The WTC towers were not solid they were mostly filled with air, so there was nothing to prevent them from falling straight down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Buildings held up by huge steel beams topple
One area gives way first and the building tends to topple. Think about chopping down a tree. The trunk does not come straight down and impale itself into the ground.

BTW, did you know that no steel framed modern building has ever collapsed, neatly or otherwise, due to fire?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #36
58. Apples and Oranges.
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 02:22 AM by tinrobot
Think about chopping down a tree. The trunk does not come straight down and impale itself into the ground.

Totally different problem.

The tree is solid, and the solid tree stump prevents the trunk from impaling the ground, so it topples sideways. The trunk is also solid, so it falls as one piece.

A building is not solid, it is mostly hollow, so there is very little to push it sideways. The building is also made of many parts, so the building falls as debris, not as one piece.

That said - look at video of the second tower to fall. The top does lean sideways as the collapse starts. This is because the impact wall gave way first and the supporting structure on the opposite wall failed seconds later. Once the collapse gained momentum, however, the building fell in on itself vertically because gravity took over and there was nothing to stop it from falling straight down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #58
101. Trees and tall buildings have a lot of angular momentum
It's hard to make them fall straight down. Any slight difference makes them topple.

Instead of arguing with me, look at the PhD's paper and decide for yourself.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. See message #105. Your own source contradicts you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #101
132.  Here's a better explaination:

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. I'll be the contrarian here...
How did both towers "free-fall" to the ground "in 9.2 seconds" in just under two hours?

Simple. The airplanes took down the two towers. I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but people who focus on things like planted explosives, missiles, or other theories are really looking in the wrong place.

If people want to find what really happened, they need to stop questioning how the towers fell and start looking at how those 19 men (some of whom were on the terrorist watch list) got into the United States, received flight training, and managed to board those planes. They also need to look at where these men came from (Saudi Arabia) and why that country has not been investigated. They need to look at the ties between the White House and Saudi Arabia.

There's plenty of room for conspiracy, plenty of unanswered questions, but trying to find a new explaination for the destruction of the towers will not give you the answers you need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. so you're saying that a physical anomalie and statistical impossibility
occured 3 times (in a row) in 2 hours.

Wow, that's some coincidence. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. check your times of collapse
it wasnt 3 in 2 hours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Some coincidence
Two separate planes hit two separate towers, completely destroying a supporting wall of the towers and unleashing tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel into each. Both towers collapse at the exact point of impact with an hour or two of the impact.

Yep, who could imagine that happening twice in the same day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. A third building not struck by a plane collapsed in exactly the same way
The jet fuel was gone in less than an hour, according the the independent scientists and engineers.

It wouldn't burn hot enough to melt the steel anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #38
84. "Independent" scientists and engineers?
I didn't realize anyone else had calculated this. Who has, and what are their calculations on the combustion of office material?


Please point out where anyone other than "alternate theory" supporters have suggested that steel was melted by the jet fuel. Your claim that it wouldn't burn hot enough is simplistic (and common). How hot something burns depends on much more than just the composition of the substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NGC_6822 Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. Foreign investigations
I totally agree with your comment about giving the home
conspiracy theories a rest and looking abroad.  That's where
they came from.  They weren't home grown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. there is a conspiracy on 9-11
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:20 PM by WoodrowFan
I agree there are questions. and a cover-up, but a cover-up of how damn poorly Shurb and company performed on 9-11. I disagree with LIHOP but I understand it. I just think it's more along the lines of Let It Happen Because They're A Bunch of Over-Confident But Incompetent Clowns. I think if they knew it was coming they would have had the Air Force jets lined up and Shrub would have been all ready to act like the brave C in C he thinks he is. MAYBE one plane would have hit the WTC for effect, the rest would have been shot down with Bush giving the orders himself (while by "coincidence" being filmed by a Faux film crew). In other words he'd had played the hero instead of being caught like a deer in headlights reading a kid's book.

MIHOP, however, started on the far, far racist right and it deserves to stay there. I've not yet seen a MIHOP film that wasn't full of lies, quote-mining, misstatements, and enough ignorance of science to make a 3d grader blush. Every single MIHOP arguement has been shot down here again and again by better posters than I, certianly by more patient ones, yet the tinfoilers keep coming back like the Black Knight in "Holy Grail" Sorry, they get no respect becasue they deserve no respect, no more than anyone else spouting crap from the racist right.

(I am agnostic on foreign intell involvement, whether it be Pakistan or the Saudis.).

In the meantime I'm going to give myself a timeout from DU before I REALLY start flaming and get tombstoned. Nothing gets my blood pressure up like hearing so-called progressives spouting RW crapola. I hope, tinrobot, that you realize my flames were NOT directed at you..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Not at all...
I'm totally on the same page as you.

Perhaps instead of LIHOP (let IT happen on purpose) there should be a term called LSHOP (let SOMETHING happen on purpose)

I think the Bush administration turned a blind eye to this and other possible threats, perhaps hoping for enough of an incident to spark the war that they wanted, or perhaps out of sheer incompetence. They didn't do anything about a possible attack because they purposely didn't WANT to know about an attack. They just wanted something to happen. When something actually did happen, they were caught with their pants down at the scale of it all, which is why Shrub looked so lost in that classroom.

Afterwards - yes, major coverup -- of what happened before, during, and after.

And yes - MIHOP stories like these simply serve as a diversion to the real story, which is not being investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
127. Very well said, WoodrowFan. nt


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rmgustaf Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
15. No 9/11 Conspiracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefuzz811 Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
16. Here is a debunk of the debunk...
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/debunking_popular_m...
To believe that there was no government involvement, or cover up, is to believe the Neo-Cons are upstanding citizens. Even if you think they didn't have anything to do with it, they have used it for their political gain ever since. The Iraq war, Afganistan, the Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, Data mining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. BS
"What Really Happened" is a far rw racist site that started off trying to "prove" that Clinton killed Vince Foster. Nice source you got there. More tin foil lies that HAZS been debunked for anyone who can wrigh evidence....

I don' think the neo-cons are anything bu war criminals for Iraq, but I also know that MIHOPers are loons and RWers who should have no place in any movement that calls itself progressive.

BTW: I also know you're about to be put on my ignore list since you clearly have neither the intelligence nor the judgment to add anything to any discussion. Why don't you go back to the Loose Change discussion board where you can practice denying the holocaust...

bye bye..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefuzz811 Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Is the BBC a better source for you?
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 12:05 PM by thefuzz811
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.st...
There are so many unanswered questions. It seems to me that you don't want to accept any alternative to the established story. I'm sorry, your blinded by the information, that has spewed from the governments propaganda machine. What makes you think that there aren't lies and cover ups, when there have been so many lies and cover ups in the past.


edited for spelling errors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Also from BBC: "Katrina is moving westwards at nearly 7mph"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4184580.stm

It may be a good idea to look at some more recent information, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. That Katrina article in the BBC was from Saturday, 27 August 2005
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 02:14 PM by John Q. Citizen
and this article on CNN was from Thursday, August 25, 2005

"As of 8 p.m., Katrina's center was 65 miles (105 kph) north-northeast of Nassau, the Bahamian capital, and about 165 miles east of the Florida coast.

The storm had begun a turn to the west and was moving west-northwest at about 9 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/24/tropical.stor... /

Are you somehow claiming that either article is incorrect, greyl?

Do you have any newer articles that dispute the BBC article on the fact that they have interviewed and identified many of the supposed hijackers after 9/11?

Or are you simply using a BBC article on Katrina to "muddy the waters" so to speak?

Your non-response to the BBC article on the hijackers presented as some sort of rebuttal is intellectually dishonest, IMHO. Until you can show the article to be generally untrue, we must assume that it is in fact true.

Many of the so-called hijackers are alive and well. Somebody got their photos and claimed they were involved in 9/11. That somebody is employed by the US government, since they collected and released the pictures of the so-called hijackers.

(edited for spelling)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I thought my point was sharp enough.
The "alive hijacker" article is 5 years old, from 12 days after the attacks.

If it was an inside job, why was it difficult to identify the hijackers?
I'm not surprised that there are cases of mistaken identity with people who use fake IDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
What your saying is it really doesn't matter who was involved, just buy the official story and quit worrying. We know somebody did it.

If the people named by our government weren't actually involved, then it begs the question of, then who was?

You write greyl, "If it was an inside job, why was it difficult to identify the hijackers?"

It wasn't hard at all to incorrectly identify the so called hijackers. The FBI incorrectly identified the so called hijacker almost immediately following 9/11. It was easy because there was so much conveniently left behind "evidence" to point the way to those incorrect identifications.

What is hard to understand is how the FBI can't correctly identify the hijackers. It suggest the real perpetrators are still running around, after misdirecting the FBI.

Why would Islamic martyrs want to conceal their identities, especially after the fact? Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose of martyrdom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. To who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Now I see where you get your talking points from, an anonymous
web site without any attribution as to who publishes those opinions and talking points.

You are relying on the "anti-Killtown," greyl. Somebody or a group of somebodies who don't even have the courage of their convictions to attach their names to their so called convictions.

I'll take Dr. Jone's signed research or "Loose Change" who freely give out the names of their director, Producer, and writer over an anonymous web site any day.

Your "Killtown" of the anti-truth movement just doesn't cut it. Although they do seem to tell you exactly what you want to hear so I see why you trust them, whoever they may be.

Of course, for all you or anyone knows, they might be funded and run by the Office of Special Projects, run by Dick Cheney. Or maybe not. But we sure can't say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Your research is extremely weak.
The site I linked to is not an "anonymous web site". I'll help you out - here: www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

I see you have zero relevent arguments concerning the content of what I linked to, again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
47. Hi thefuzz, welcome to DU.!
:hi:

When someone tells me I'm being place on "Ignore" I just laugh. It reminds me of a five year old sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting, "La La la la la, I can't hear you."

I know the minute they say "your going on ignore, bye," that I won the argument.

Fortunatly, those who play that childish game are in the tiny minority.

See you around.

JQC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
40. Interesting how this thread reminds me of black box voting arguments
There are those willing to at least explore the possibility of widespread election fraud and those who simply will not even give it a rational thought.

There are those of us who believe that the neo-cons are capable of blowing up these buildings and those who won't even allow themselves to think about it.

The idea that our government could be so evil is very chilling, but I have to consider it. Everything they have done since 9/11 tells me they are capable of vast evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Your post is based on seriously flawed logic.
You make a hasty conclusion by believing that those that argue against the merits of a particular side of an argument have never considered the merits.

As such, your post reminds me of hundreds of others that avoid discussing evidence in favor of casting baseless aspersions on those who disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Most people are scared to think through the implications
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 04:18 PM by ItsTheMediaStupid
They would rather stick their fingers in their ears and go NANANANANANANANANA!

If you have thought about it and you still believe the BushCo explanation, then there's no point in discussing it further. If you have thought it through, there is no point in including yourself in my statements.

My brother will not even consider the possibility that the elections have been rigged. It is beyond what he's capable of seeing. He also believes that global warming isn't real. ;)

(Edited to be a little more polite and remove typos.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #43
56. You are imagining that. Admit it.
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 01:52 AM by greyl
Many people like to say that people who disagree with them are closed minded or afraid of facing the truth, but more often than not, that's what they say when evidence and solid arguments in their favor are nowhere to be found.
Funnily, it's very often those same people who are unwilling to consider that an idea they've emotionally invested in so heavily may be incorrect.

Face it, contrary to your assertion, most people wouldn't put anything past "the government".
Most of us remember that segregation existed only a few decades ago. Most of us have heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Most of us have a healthy skepticism for anything spouted by the powers that be. Most of us have seen peoples destroyed by war and poverty.
The vast majority of people know damn well that the common citizenry doesn't mean shit to the have mores.

The trick is to maintain that skepticism toward those who tell you what you want to hear, while they pretend to be in opposition to a common enemy.

*speaking for myself, I used to believe that a missile hit the pentagon after seeing the Hunt the Boeing web site that was mentioned on CNN in 2002. Thank goodness there are people who actually care about upholding standards of truth and reason in order to counteract the bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #56
79. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. Do you care to reply to post 48 which was directed to you,
rather than to post 56 which was not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. The whole 9/11 truth issue has long reminded me of the
election integrity issue.

Anyone who dares consider that the US may not be the home of the brave and the land of the free are instantly characterized as wacko.

And evidence just doesn't matter. There are those who, in the face of repeated evidence in many areas are still forced to fall back on the notion that it somehow just can't happen here.

These same people can believe that the US government would engineer to steal an election in a foreign country or would violently overthrow an elected government, or run a false flag operation in a foreign country, but they can't believe the same government would do the same thing at home.

That's similar to a spouse who knows the wife/husband would cheat while out of town, but can't believe they would bring their outside lover into the house to get laid. Well guess what? Happens all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. They lied about the causus belli to start an illegal/unethical war in Iraq
Why would I believe them about what happened on 9/11? Given all that we know now, my only questions are-
(1) Why aren't they standing trial for all their crimes on and after 9/11/01 and
(2) Why hasn't an independent (ie not chosen by the suspects) commission been formed to revisit and objectively evaluate all of the evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #49
66. Because people are asleep and they think it can't happen here.
We are like the Jews under the Nazi's and can't conceive that we a about to be sent to the ovens and gas chambers.

I know it sounds dramatic. but what about the 100000 plus dead Iraqi civilian, women and children who are dead?

If the fascist war mongers can do it there, they can do it here, in a heartbeat. They don't care. These are the same people who let as many people as possible drown in New Orleans while they sat on their hands.

It's a process. One atrocity at a time overlaid by another. People aren't even aware of how far down the garden path they've been taken until it's too late to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. Rowe says they intentionally put lies into Loose Change!
Did you read the article?

Does someone who authentically cares about truth purposefully include lies in their film?
In Bizarro world, maybe.

Btw, it's not lost on me that Korey Rowe may very well be lying in the interview. He's a piece of opportunistic shit, plain and simple. A capitalist with zero scruples, much like Dick Cheney and Sylvia Browne. That, or he's just infected witht he attention.

"Then -- and I hate to say this -- I saw "Fahrenheit 911," which to me is a terrible movie. -k.rowe"

"It{Loose Change} started out as a comedic action film" - k.rowe

"We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there" - k.rowe


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. Right. But he's a lot more honest than you, greyl
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 02:54 AM by John Q. Citizen
Thank you for encouraging me to read the article. I hadn't until your post and now I have. That guy is a true American hero.

I love the way you take what he's saying and manipulate it. Classic.

http://www.alternet.org/story/40476 / Here's the link, dear reader. Please check it out, it's a great read.


"Then -- and I hate to say this -- I saw "Fahrenheit 911," which to me is a terrible movie. But a lot of it made sense in the pretext and military build-up to Afghanistan before we were actually attacked. When I walked out of that movie I was like, "Wow, that messed with my head." Right before I deployed for Iraq, I had the inclination that something was seriously wrong. But then it didn't matter because at that point I had to go. My unit needed me. I was the company RTO (radio telephone operator); I was running communications. It didn't matter what my personal beliefs were. I just had to go over and shut my mouth for another year. -k.rowe


ROWE: "Loose Change" happened by accident. The whole thing started out as a fictional screenplay about me and Dylan and another friend of ours finding out 9/11 was an inside job. It started out as a comedic action film with us being chased by the FBI and all that. But when Dylan started researching the screenplay, he found out the attacks really were an inside job, so we made it into a documentary. I see myself as a person who's a buffer between conspiracy theorist and military informant, so I thought my help on "Loose Change" would make it a better quality piece, something more mainstream people who aren't into conspiracies could really watch and take in." -k.rowe


ROWE: "What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again.

And that's what America has always been about. From the Vietnam protests it's always been about a passion. And now we're trying to build that passion in people, to wake up, to stop watching television, to stop reading the crappy newspapers, and go online and find those declassified documents. Go find the scientists that aren't young filmmakers, but the ones after Steven E. Jones at BYU, who has steel from the World Trade Center and has conducted tests on the steel. And it's come to the point, over and over again, that what they (the 9-11 Commission) say can't be true. That it had to be brought down by controlled demolition. Our whole goal is to wake Americans up to do something about it."

{b] I also liked this part

SLENSKE: Didn't you ever stop and think, "Wait, Dylan is just a kid"?

K. ROWE: Yeah, several times. I thought, I'm in the military, I know stuff. But Dylan was way more informed than me. Like I said, I'm getting the Army Times, I'm getting the AFN, and now it's out. It's reported that the government spent millions of dollars spinning false articles to newspapers across the world. So who's to say the Armed Forces Network and the Army Times aren't chockfull of bullshit?

SLENSKE: How prevalent is that mindset in the Army?

ROWE: That they know what's going on?

SLENSKE: Yeah?

ROWE: It's 98 percent. It's a fantasy world those people live in. I mean it's really something. I call them infected. They can't come back to civilian life. They're like, "You can't get out of the Army, you ain't gonna get no job, you ain't gonna do nothing. You gonna work at Burger King. What are you gonna do at Burger King? You still wear a uniform; you still get a haircut at Burger King. So why don't you just stay in the Army, join up, sign again, get $6,000." If you don't reenlist, they just make you sit in a chair. They made me sit in a chair for a week. Sit in that chair until you reenlist. I just sat there. "You want me to sit in this chair," I said, "I'll sit in this chair for a month, because in a month I'm out of here."

I like this guy; Young, talented, and passionate. Such a difference, say, from the bland nothingness of that 9/11 Un-truth site you like to push, 9/11 myths. Not that I have anything personally against the site manager, but much of his stuff is, well stupid. Thanks again for the good tip, greyl. It was definitely worth reading for myself instead of taking your word for it. -JQC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. What exactly are you accusing me of?
I didn't "manipulate" what he said.

What grounds do you have to accuse me of being less honest than korey rowe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Read 'em and weap. buddy. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Read what? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. I almost believed greyl
then I saw this - "there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves"
- Who's the dishonest one? Thanks for posting that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. And you buy that? Holy crap.
You're telling me that sometimes there's a good reason for lying? Is that a something that everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement stands by? I'm saddened that people believe such shoddy excuses.

Oh no, this just can't be...they are really going to try to palm off the goofs people find in LC - R as intentional?? So they get a free pass no matter how sloppy it is, because they'll just claim it was done on purpose to inspire people to do their own research??
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62262


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. I'm a kind of lie? What the hell does that mean? :)
What I do know, is that your reply doesn't speak to the subject of the post it's in reply to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. I did too, miranda. I'm glad he asked if I even read it. That inspired
me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've admitted that
you didn't read the subject of this thread before replying in agreement to a meta-comment on the thread. At least you're crediting me with encouraging you to read the subject of the thread. Thank you soooooo much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. The link, my friend, the link. It's a fast paced world. If I only had the
time and money to be able to afford to read every link posted on DU, I might be as smart as you.

Maybe I can get a job where they pay me to do that. That would be awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #60
76. OCTers, we need more folks like Rowe on our side!
We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions.


We, OCTers, need to learn from Rowe's powerful methods! Let us stick to the evidence and to rational arguments so that people will not want to discredit us! That way they will not want to come up with their own favourite conclusions! They'll become slavish imitators of our intellectually respectable debating tactics and become believers in some rationally grounded OCT!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #76
81. lol ! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #76
85. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. War?
Please, with the military analogies. It's not like we're actually competing or anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #85
90. "you guys"?
"war"?

Seems like someone here needs what we called a *time out* when my daughter was in diapers and a refresher course in what we then called and still call *reality*.

Good luck with that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #76
114. Isn't Bush administration science enough? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #114
120. I wouldn't know - I don't use Bush admin. science.
I use good-old generic brand science. If it was good enough for my father, then it is good enough for me. Besides - I don't have an agenda to promote, and that's about all that Bush science is good for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #60
89. Oh, please, shake your head. If you buy that, I've got a bridge for sale
in Brooklyn that I'm sure you'll be interested in.

*sheesh*

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
62. Loose Change is a piece of garbage
Even many CTers agree with that, including some on this very forum.

For instance:

petgoat Tue Jun-13-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Loose Change is a piece of garbage, agreed. I watched about

half of it. Good production, lousy research.

Nobody here is promoting Loose Change. It's a straw man.


I'm not a CTer but I happen to agree with that and, off the top of my head, I can think of all kinds of more examples of how and why it is a piece of garbage.

Bear in mind, these are just off the top of my head, and I haven't the time to check spelling, grammar and such or to provide the pinpoint references in the loose change film but you can go to the links below which do, and you can (and should) also conduct your own actual research as well to confirm them (that means not just relying on conspiracy theory sites like the loosechange guys do, by the way, but some real, actual, independent research).

Anyway, some examples:

It is chock full of numerous instances of unsubstantiated and unsourced assertions that any honest research could, would, should, does (and/or will) know better than to try to pass off as factual, but nope, not the loosechangers - can't let little things like truth and facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory and a few more dvd and tee shirt sales to the uninitiated and/or uninformed and/or gullible;

it is full of outdated nonsense that the lazy loosechangers have never bothered to follow up on or conduct a moments research on, ;

it is chock a block with all manner of dishonest quote mining;

it misquotes people and, even worse, dishonestly fails to note that numerous people it has misquoted or misrepresented have expressly said publicly that they were misquoted or misrepresented (including firefighters, controlled demolition experts, and the leaseholder of the WTC);

it dishonestly insinuates expertise on behalf of some of those it quotes when those individuals have no expertise in any field relevant to the topic being opined on;

it is derisive, disrespectful and downright contemptuous toward flight passenger victims and their surviving family members;

it "quotes" people whose existence is in question without ever having made any effort to locate them nor any effort to ascertain that said people even exist, let alone attempt to ascertain whether the quotes attributed to them were accurate or in context;

it totally misrepresents what the coroner in Shanksville said, saw, and did;

it completely ignores the realities of the bodies and body parts of those it calls the "alleged" victims at the Pentagon;

it relies upon an anonymous email on a message board as the sole source for at least one outrageous and unsubstantiated assertion (perhaps more) regarding its fanciful and ridiculous Cleveland plane swapping scenario;

it out and out lies about certain of the black boxes from the various flights not having been recovered;

it claims that the "alleged" passengers of Flight 93 could not possibly have made the phone calls to their families etal, and says there's "no question about it" the phone calls were "fake" (or the family members who received the calls are all lying), all on the basis of an "experiment" conducted by a professor of some sort in London, Ontario testing the efficacy of two Motorola cell phones in a Cessna (or similar) in an entirely different location many hundreds of miles away in a wholly different geographical area without any indication whatsoever that it was comparable in any way to the circumstances of any of the highjacked flights (most notably, of course, that the Cessna didn't have Airfones, which is what was used for the vast majority of the phone calls on the hijacked flights);

the loosechangers didn't interview even one individual whom they allege landed in Cleveland on the purportedly "swapped" flight 93, despite the fact that they purport to quote someone who supposedly landed there and was then shuffled off to a NASA building and either murdered by the gov't or relocated to live happily ever after since they were "in on it" and faking their own deaths and abandoning their families (note: this depends on which version of Loose Change and which other so called "truth" seekers you adhere to, apparently - the various CTers and the various versions of loosechange alternatively say that the passengers "are all alive" and were all "in on it" (as previous loosechange versions did) or they claim that the "real" planes were towed out to sea and dumped, presumably, or they claim that the passengers were all murdered by the gov't in some other fashion with no details provided at all, or they say that everyone on the planes (including the children as young as, what, 5 years old?) were deliberately chosen to be on the planes to be killed because they were all connected to some uber-plot and needed killing (oh, that's ignoring for now the loosechange makers saying that "the people are secondary", that a father "sent his little boy off to die" and such lovely gems as those, of course);

it is utterly contemptuous of the flight attendants and crew on the hijacked flights;

in one instance, it heaps ridicule and derision on one flight attendant for purportedly sounding calm while reporting the actions of the hijackers while simultaneously heaping ridicule and derision on another flight attendant for NOT sounding calm while reporting the actions of the hijackers;

it says that many of the hijackers are still alive, based entirely on a report of Sept. 2001 and has the loosechangers have not even bothered to follow the evidence that has come out for the nearly five years since then which explains and refutes that early report (though several DUers have, to their great credit);

it says that the hijackers are not on the "official autopsy list" while citing a document that is not an "official autopsy list" at all, but a list of the passengers who had been identified via DNA from one of the flights (the families of the hijackers did not submit DNA for comparison purposes);

it says, when speaking of the response letter to an FOIA request enclosing the list of passengers identified via DNA mentioned above that "the opening paragraph does not even mention them (the hijackers)" and the loosechangers apparently still do not realize, even after several "versions" of this stupid crockumentary, that they still don't have a clue about the nature of the document they are citing or what on earth it means;

it totally misunderstands and misinterprets the issue of the "put options" and totally misrepresents the story about the German company recovering data from mainframes and hard drives;

it says that the FBI was "legally bound to investigate and to date they have done no such thing" (no basis for that assertion that I can think of), and entirely fails to note that an investigation was, in fact, conducted into the put options and reported upon, fails to note that the same investor who would have made money on one transaction had simultaneously made another transaction in which he would have lost just as much money;

it says that the alleged profits from these alleged inside trades were never collected, but true to form - relies solely upon a newspaper report very shortly after Sept. 11/2001 and has never followed up since that time or bothered to research or report upon the completion of the transactions at issue;

personally, I don't think the loosechange trio even understands what put options are, and it is obvious that they have not done a scrap of independent research at all, nor have they followed up on the facts since 2001, again despite this being several "improved" versions of their garbage later;

as for the gold found underneath the World Trade Center, the loosechangers get this part so wrong that I almost feel sorry for them (only almost, though, because, yet again, they just make pluck nonsense from conspiracy sites as as they go along with absolutely no respect for facts, evidence or truth);

the gold (and silver) was found in the Bank of Nova Scotia vaults. There are actual photographs, evidence and statements proving this which is readily ascertainable to any actual researcher who bothers to research it diligently for an hour, but no, no, these boys dont need no stinkin evidence, they are content to just spew another piece of crap instead;

they are content with a blurry email from some guy with a strange pseudonym panning the screen (much blurrier than in the previous version - seems that maybe they didn't like the fact that skeptics were actually reading it and proving their accompanying narrative to be dishonest but they couldn't be bothered to actually conduct the ten minutes worth of research that it would have taken for them to locate the truth on this point and correct their video as it, once again, wouldn't fit their tinhat theories) - while claiming that "Reuters reports" that the gold was found in "the back of a 10 wheel truck along with several cars in a delivery tunnel underneath WTC5" and then Avery goes on to opine that "I think it's safe to say that they were running away from the south tower". Er, no, it was gold and silver in the Bank of Nova Scotia vault that was located in the Bank of Nova Scotia vault. The vault was intact and so were the contents and the evidence is easily obtainable if they bothered to look.

they also claim that the gold (they keep forgetting about the silver) was moved out overnight, which is based on the same faulty news story of October 31 or November 1, 2001, which they clearly have never bothered to investigate. If they had, they would know that the NYPD was thrilled that the story was wrong as it took more than a week to get the gold and silver out of the vault and the incorrect story in the New York Times was a boon to them for security purposes;

oh, and they now say that "they" were "running away from the south tower" with just $1 billion worth of gold, a figure much less than a mere 1% of the original bogus figure of $160 billion or more which the loosechangers claimed earlier on the basis of these three words: "rumor has it" in earlier versions of this little fairy tale, although they still appear to done no research at all to substantiate even the much smaller figure;

their "truth seeking" skills appear to amount to nothing more than scouring conspiracy theory sites on the internet, picking out what they think will sell easily to the gullible, while ignoring and discarding anything they might accidentally stumble upon on a non-conspiracy site that remotely resembles, requires, or provides facts or evidence. Even then, their "truth seeking" skills are shoddy at best, grossly and deliberately dishonest at worst;

it's as though they've adopted the attitude that, "hey, let's just put forward as fact one eyewitness account that supports our tinhat theories and let's ignore the corresponding hundred eyewitness accounts that contradict that one account"; and, finally,

everything in this fairy tale is taken from conspiracy sites on the internet, mostly right wing ones full of anti-semitism, racism and pure looney toons/woo woo stuff;

I could go on and on but this is off the top of my head and suffice it to say that this is a piece of garbage on all levels. In the newest version, the loosechangers actually have the audacity to pat themselves on the back for their "tenacity and ingenuity" when they have displayed not one iota of either.

The only decent thing the loosechange guys did in their latest big steaming pile of crap was to remove from the previous versions several whoppers that even THEY couldn't stand to spout any longer (due to well deserved ridicule from those who do not don the tinfoil and from their own fellow conspiracy theorists who were equally embarrassed when they had to grudgingly admit that some of the earlier fairy tales were even too much woo woo for them) (see the earlier versions which are still available on the internet if you really want to be appalled even more), in addition to removing the following lies:

i) that their claptrap was "dedicated to the lives we lost on 9/11"; that hold the 9-11 widows, orphans and others who were affected by September 11 in the highest regard;
ii) that mean no disrespect to them or their loved ones in releasing this documentary;

iii) that are not trying to capitalize off of them, despite what some may believe; and

iv) that it is in their memory that search for the truth

Since it is and has always been quite obvious that i-iv above were lies from the beginning, it is good that they removed them.

There are several point by point debunking guides and video to this garbage, and I am sure that they will be added to now that this latest version has been released, but give the following sources a peek at your leisure.

Loose Change Viewers Guide: a step by step companion piece to the Loose Change video that provides truth and facts that the Loose Change video willfully ignores and omits

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Screw Loose Change (Annotated version of the Loose Change video, in three parts for easy viewing):
Go to http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr /
Then click on "videos" at the left to get the links to each of the three parts.

Debunking911: an excellent site that debunks many of the untruths and half truths found on numerous conspiracy sites and in the Loose Change video

www.debunking911.com

911myths: an excellent site that debunks many of the untruths and half truths found on numerous conspiracy sites and in the Loose Change video

www.911myths.com

9/11 Deniers Speak - exposing the movement video Using their own words in various video and radio interviews, this video exposes the callous and ignorant behavior behind key members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and Loose Change. This video includes Jack Blood, Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, and Jimmy Walter. WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES and coarse language.

For the record, there are some parts of the 911 Deniers Speak video that I dont care for, but its worth watching for the sake of seeing the derision and contempt that many self-proclaimed truth seekers show for the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Personally, I think that the biggest disgrace shown is Jim Fetzer for his repeatedly casting slurs against victims, ranting at victims family members and telling jokes at the truth seekers convention where his loyal cult followers laugh it up quite uproariously at the expense of the dead and their families. (starting about 20 minutes in).

www.lolloosechange.co.nr /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #62
78. Good post, lots of valuable info.
Especially, the 9/11 Deniers Speak video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #78
88. Yeah, pretty sick listening to the loosechangers' own words, isn't it?
When they grow up, hopefully, they'll be ashamed of themselves. I trust that their parents already are ashamed of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #62
112. Here's another link that I should have included
Loose Change Creators Speak: an excellent paper setting out the words of the loosechangers themselves, collected from interviews, internet forums, their own videos, their own brochures, etc.
It's quite telling.

http://911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
64. The new edition of Loose Change is excellent
they took some stuff out and added some other stuff like the 1975 fire. It's extremely persuasive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #64
72. It's a very good documentary. They ask some very relevant
questions.

As Rowe says, they want to tighten it up before widespread commercial release.

The stupidest part of the interview (thanks again greyl, for your recommendation to read it) was when the interviewer says that Blair Witch was "believable."

That was the stupidest non-movie I've ever seen.

Loose Change 2nd edition is a great film, er, video. Entertaining, informative, and thought provoking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #72
77. It's not a documentary, it's fiction.
Any movie that includes intentional falsehoods, in the manner that rowe describes, is not a documentary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. Yes, it is total fiction.
But you know, there is a certain portion of the population who would rather suspend their disbelief indefinitely than engage in critical and rational thought; those who would rather sink into a cesspool of nonsense than actually have to confront facts and evidence.

'Tis sad but true.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #82
134. You say Loose Change video is total fiction as in "all made up"?
...Is that your opinion only Jazz2006, or can you outline evidence from the video to support your claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #134
135. Hi, whistle.
I don't think we've ever "met" in this forum before, so first of all, welcome. :hi:

To answer your question, it is my opinion that the loosechange video is unadulterated crap, yes. That opinion is shared by many others, including conspiracy theorists and self proclaimed truthiness seekers in this very forum, as set out above. You may have noticed that there aren't very many 'regulars' among the numerous truthiness seekers here defending the video. Certainly, none of the more "serious" truthiness researchers are defending it. (In fact, I just checked again and I don't see a single one of the "serious" truthiness seekers defending it.) Not a single one. That should/might tell you something, too.

As for your second question about evidence to support my claim, I guess you didn't read my previous posts in which I set out a long series of such evidence off the top of my head and provided links to much more comprehensive evidence that shows how pathetic, erroneous, and completely lacking in research the loosechange video is.

Please see posts #62 and #112 and the links contained therein. Then, by all means, let's talk further. I would very much welcome your input and would very much welcome such discussion after you've read those posts and the links provided.

Regards,
Jazz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #135
136. Thank you Jazz, I will read both your comments at those posts and
...go to the links you provided, reviewing all of these sources thoroughly and with an open-mind.

Could you answer this question for me?

Is it your premise then, that the official Bush administration position, the Pentagon videos and official statements, the 9/11 Commission Final Report and perhaps a few other official documents on what caused the WTC towers and WTC7 to collapse by fire, are the most truthful and complete versions of the events and their causes on September 11, 2001?

Lastly, have you viewed the video "9/11 Eyewitness" (the 1hour, 45 minute version) and if yes what are your opinions of the contents and research associated with that film video?

Thank you again for the opportunity to remain in discussion about 9/11.

Warm regards,

Whistle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-26-06 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #136
137. I'll look forward to your return and further discussion.
Is it your premise then, that the official Bush administration position, the Pentagon videos and official statements, the 9/11 Commission Final Report and perhaps a few other official documents on what caused the WTC towers and WTC7 to collapse by fire, are the most truthful and complete versions of the events and their causes on September 11, 2001?


I proffered no such premise, nor would I use the words "truthful and complete" to describe anything that the Bush administration does.

Lastly, have you viewed the video "9/11 Eyewitness" (the 1hour, 45 minute version) and if yes what are your opinions of the contents and research associated with that film video?


Yes, I watched 9/11 Eyewitness quite some time ago. I would have to watch it again in order to discuss it in any detail, but I don't mind doing that after you return and after we discuss the foregoing posts and points.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #64
87. Er, no, it is still garbage.
They took out the worst of the very worst of their previous lies, some of which are set out above, and they added nothing of substance whatsoever because they still, after nearly five years, have not done a single stitch of research whatsoever.

It's still garbage.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 22nd 2014, 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC