scholars for 9/11 truth & loose change

[bronco2121]

i know it has become unpopular (for some reason) on DU to criticize the new direction of the... well, i wouldn't call it the '9/11 truth movement' anymore - it's now more like the 'big tent 9/11 anything-coulda-happened movement'.

so if you're the kind whose eyes might bleed if you read anything critical of either the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' or the happy shiny music video known as 'loose change'... DO NOT view these URLs:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php

bronco
flight77.info

[Kevin Fenton]

1. Thanks for the links

I read Hoffman's essay about ST911 and I agree with about 98% of it. What's the point of forming an organisation like ST911 and then taking it out to the fringe of the "9/11 truth movement"?

[JackRiddler]

2. The Big Empty Tent

(n.) Policy by which the circus in the name of tolerance lets in a bunch of drunks who proceed to burn it all down.

[petgoat]

7. Maybe it's just time to let a bit of fresh air in, and reconsider. nt

[Woody Box]

3. Hoffman is just jealous

His books would certainly sell better if he himself would be regarded as the most sophisticated 9/11 researcher.

Unfortunately for him, he's neither the top 9/11 expert, nor is he widely accepted in this role. That's why he sends out funny characters like Michael B. Green spreading lousy essays to discredit the scholars and loose change. :boring:

[JackRiddler]

10. Jealousy has nothing to do with it...

If we're going to compare reader numbers, Hoffman probably beats you by a substantial factor.

But this is irrelevant. It's not a popularity contest.

For my part, since you've brought this up before, I'm not "jealous" of Ruppert, Griffin, Thompson, Tarpley, Sharon Stone or anyone else who has a larger audience than I do. And I'm not "jealous" of reopen911 or loose change. We can critique each of these authors or works regardless of how popular they are. By your logic, when we critique the 9/11 Commission, we're just jealous because they have a larger audience than all of us put together.

[Make7]

16. Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher - Jim Hoffman

Best of 9/11 Truth Media, 2005

Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher
Jim Hoffman
Jim has supplied more than 1,000 easily
readable, content-filled pages
911research.wtc7.net
wtc7.net
911Review.com

[killtown]

21. So you believe with him that the WTC's were controlled demo?

and the 7?

[Make7]

27. No. And no. ( n/t )

[mt1000]

4. survey on recent or old curiosity on 9-11 issue

After attending 2 NY 911 Truth demonstrations this week
I have noticed a big change in public perception and more people being
interested in it.

I think there may be a whole new crowd visiting websites and seeking information.
I made a survey up to see if people looking at information are newly interested or
were they always doubters of the official story.

If you are also interested in the topic you may link to the suvey
http://www.lfchosting.com/sportsfem/peace/911survey.html
short url (for blogs) - http://tinyurl.com/eozgc

- or copy the code from the webpage and insert it into one of your pages.

When you take the poll the results page has an "e-mail this poll" feature.

[salvorhardin]

11. As I noted before, your survey is problematic

• It does not include any options for people who believe the official story
  
• It does not include options for people who believe the official chain of events but might have questions concerning other aspects of the official story
  
• It does not include options for people who do not know what to believe

[stickdog]

5. I have mixed feelings about this stuff.

Fetzer is a philosopher. He probably would be best left leaving any science angles to his more scientific colleagues. However, I do think that Hoffman and his groupies are prone to overstating their case because, at this point, this "movement" needs nothing more than it needs popular traction.

When and if more educated people start feeling they can THINK and TALK ABOUT this stuff without committing capital heresy, the evidence will simply speak for itself because it's so fucking obvious.

[rastafan]

6. popular traction gained from horrible research?

No thanks, I don't want any part of that
doomed credibilty ship.

[petgoat]

8. Doomed how? Since when does popular traction depend

upon credibility?

[stickdog]

9. This is not just a research war, rastafan.

First and foremost, it's a meme war and, as Repukes has conclusively proven over the last decade, successful memes in modern US culture have much more to do with marketing than with stringent research requirements.

[rastafan]

12. the logic escapes me

This marketing based 9-11 philosophy does not fully take into consideration that in addition to being a physical attack on the towers, 9-11 was a a calculated psychological attack on the American people.

The premise that the quality of research is not as important as getting the information out there seems problematic and short sighted. One could well argue that many receptive people are alienated to the 9-11 issue after being exposed to shoddy research materials. It cheapens everything by association.


Is there an anti-science philosophy in the 9-11 truth movement?


Whatever happened to standards and principles?

[salvorhardin]

13. You nailed it

Anti-science it sure is. Don't forget the lovely patina of antisemitism and xenophobia.

[petgoat]

19. There's a Heisenberg Principle to Perceptions of Anti-Semitism

sometimes.

[theobscure]

15. I agree with you but we also have to realize that average...

Americans (like myself) have a very low comprehension of science and math. Most Americans even go so far as to completely discount science and math (I at least acknowledge the legitimacy of science and math and am trying to make an effort to understand). Let's not forget, tens of millions of Americans have voted twice for a President who has said himself that he doesn't believe in science.


This is why I focus on the attack aftermath issues which obviously point to a bi-partisan cover-up and whitewash. There would be no reason for this if there wasn't something to hide regarding the attacks themselves. This has put the possibility of massive criminal negligence and dereliction of duty by Congress and Presidential administrations from both parties back on the table for me. When people have unaccountable power for as long as the Democrats and Republicans have, it is only human nature for people to neglect or even ignore the responsibility that is supposed to come with the power.

I still lean heavily, with so much evidence, to the idea that there had to be a small faction within our government (of course, most likely the neo-cons) who seized on the lack of attention and disconnect both within and outside of the government and made this happen. So perhaps we are looking at a combination of direct complicity by a few and indirect complicity by the rest.

Both camps, however, in short order, closed ranks and were actively complicit in covering their tracks with the attack cover-up and whitewash, the wars, the Patriot Act, etc. The Democrats have played their familiar role of devil's advocate to provide the illusion of an opposition.

[rastafan]

14. Carnival like website of ST911.org

It is a tactical error that the website (or group) does not have standards and thus may serve as a credibilty detriment to the more mainstream american public at large. Though they have several exceptional members, that outragous claims are permitted in their mist "cheapens the very legitimacy" of their group as well as the entire 911 truth movement by association.


If one doubts these questions about credibility of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" website, the Wing TV and Greg Syzmanski links (implied endorsement) are confirmation of a lack of website committee's vetting standards. If the "scholars" had a viable committee to discuss the credibility of link association, they would not have allowed the filthy Wing TV and Syzmanski associations to taint "their" group website. It also strains credulity that Morgan Reynolds is permitted to be a public spokesman for the "scholars" since it is his position that no planes actually hit the WTC towers; that Phillip Berg is also included as a "scholar" despite the reasonable conclusion that the Rodriguez RICO case is a set up.

Credibilty about important issues does not exist in a vacuum. Long term success bringing 911 truth to the american populace requires a base set of bulletproof standards.

That said, I would suggest that anyone in a position of leadership within the 911 truth movement who either advocates or endorses poor research material should immediately become better educated, resign or be removed from a leadership role. That this basic standard's requirement will be considered an outragous suggestion speaks to the general naivet'e and ineptness of the current leaders within the 911 truth activism community. That I am forced to conceal an identity to freely comment about infiltration, tactics and credibility speaks to the (networking fatal) political incorrectness of such "outragous" beliefs and suggestions.

[Mind_your_head]

17. Please explain....

despite the reasonable conclusion that the Rodriguez RICO case is a set up.

Why/how do you believe this to be a 'set up'?

[rastafan]

18. Berg's Rico suit is not viable

I have finished reading the Rodriguez Affidavit and find the content and approach legally problematic. Someone had forwarded me an interesting message from Phillip Berg's former webmaster, who recently bailed. Read the resignation letter and review the legal affidavit filing for yourself at the link below.


...
"Perhaps this factor has little to do with establishing an international 9-11 investigation, but it does concern me that the press might be only to happy to grab hold of it.

"Not to distract from William's genuinely honorable achievements but his
(Berg's) December 2005 (RICO) Affidavit was so bad that I refused to post it
and resigned as Phil's webmaster.

If you have interest and stomach, you can get to the Rodriguez Affidavit
via my resignation letter posted on March 26. As far as I know, the affidavit
has not been published anywhere else online."
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/Thoughts.htm

[Debunking911]

20. Easy to refute loose change...

There is a part in loose change where they time the collapse of one of the towers. They say it fell in something like 9 seconds and have a timer running under it. If you stop the timer at 10:09 when the video ends you'll note he stops it only when the perimeter columns hit the ground and not the building itself. The building is still about 40 stories and hidden in the massive debris cloud. There is still a few seconds left which are edited out. Very deceptive and dishonest.

http//www.debunking911.com

[killtown]

22. ""Pull it" means “PULL” the operations out…"

:rofl:

[Debunking911]

24. Are you calling the fireman liars??? Heh!

Are you calling the fireman lairs? Are you saying they would cover up the largest mass muder in US history for BUSH??? HAHAHAHA!!!

[mirandapriestly]

26. I didn't see him say that at all.nt

[Chomp]

28. One minute

we are meant to believe that only 7 people were involved in the execution of 9/11 (as was posited in a recent thread here), the next minute we are meant to believe that Larry Silverstein stood around barking orders about "pulling" (down) a building.

That wouldn't be very tactful behaviour for a conspirator in a mass murder, would it?

[greyl]

29. Some of the same people will say that 19 Arabs couldn't have done it.

19 Arabs - impossible
7 people lead by a Jew - the truth

I wonder what that means? ;)

(btw, killtown has been tombstoned)

[Make7]

30. How will I get my $10,000 from him now? ( n/t )

[rman]

31. How about,

A relatively small group of Americans officially in key positions in and around the US government and various government agencies.
versus
A relatively small group of people with no position in and around the government and various government agencies.

Assuming 9-11 is MIHOP - in other words, an "inside job" - which group is more likely to have succeeded?

[greyl]

32. Why not start with the presumption that

our politics in the Mid-East had compelled certain factions to become "determined to strike inside the US"? Terrorist group statements and our intelligence made that clear, did it not?

[rman]

33. "compelled" doesn't give them any more access

to the tools needed (control and command) to have NORAD stand down, and cause multiple war games to take place on 9-11.

[greyl]

36. So, you're fine with starting with the presumption that terrorists

wanted to attack us, but that America's defenses under the bush admin were strong enough to protect us?

[rman]

43. The assumption would be on your part,

just for the sake of argument:

"A relatively small group of Americans officially in key positions in and around the US government and various government agencies.
versus
A relatively small group of people with no position in and around the government and various government agencies.

Assuming 9-11 is MIHOP - in other words, an "inside job" - which group is more likely to have succeeded?"
Or alternatively:
If 9-11 is MIHOP - in other words, an "inside job" - which group is more likely to have succeeded?"


I ask you to assume MIHOP for a moment because i know that nothing anyone might say will convince you that it actually is MIHOP.
I don't have to assume MIHOP because i am convinced by the evidence that it is MIHOP - same evidence that doesn't convince you.

[greyl]

44. On a personal note,

as I've said before here, I used to believe in MIHOP - even that a missile hit the pentagon. That lasted for a few weeks.

Listen, planes have been hijacked and crashed into targets before. We know terrorists intended to attack us.
Btw, I used "presumed" instead of "assumed" for a reason.

[rman]

47. Still avoiding to answer my question

This discussion is not very fruitful for me.

[greyl]

48. You asked two questions, and they both assume MIHOP.

Did you ever answer my first question about presumption?

I don't want you to think I'm avoiding your question. Pose it again, and I'll deal with it.

[rman]

49. Post my question for a third time?

I have better things to do.

And yes i answered you question about assuming (not presuming) mihop.

[greyl]

50. C'mon you can do it.

I believe in you.
This is important, right?

[rman]

51. You can read what i posted before, can't you?

I don't feel like continuing to run in circles with you.

[dailykoff]

34. Bad Move: Motivation speculation

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=64

Julian Baggini is editor of The Philosophers' Magazine.

:)

[greyl]

35. It's not speculation at all.

The pre-9/11 intelligence, statements from Al-Quada, and other terrorist actions aren't speculated. They are fact.

Thanks for reading my post, but boos for retaining your bias.

edit: btw, do you realize that condi rice wants you to believe that "nobody could have predicted the attacks"?
Do you believe everything the government tells you? ;)

[dailykoff]

37. Until it's proven, it's speculation

and I've seen no proof of any connection between Afghani Talibani and 9/11.

I don't consider claims that "Osama admitted it" as proof, either.

[greyl]

38. Do you consider ALL of the following to be speculation?:

www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html

I'm bewildered by your varying standards of proof, dailykof.
(well, not really)

[dailykoff]

39. As to the motive for 9/11, yes.

It certainly isn't proof.

[greyl]

40. Not motive. Intent.

Do you believe, like condi wants us to believe, that there was no pre-9/11 evidence that terrorists intended to attack gw bush's country?

[dailykoff]

41. It shows that the Pentagon and CIA were obsessed with the idea

for eight years before 9/11.

I don't think it says anything particularly credible about any foreign individual or organization.

[greyl]

42. okayyyy. nt

[dailykoff]

45. Has ANY terrorist pulled off ANY stunt

as remotely coordinated (4 simultaneous hijackings) and destructive (3 buildings hit, 7 buildings totaled) EVER?

Has any terrorist ever hit ONE building with a plane before or since? How about ONE simultaneous hijacking?

Think about it. :eyes:

[greyl]

46. Your base of your argument seems to be:

"If it hasn't happened in the past, it can never happen"
I wish I knew the Latin for that fallacious logic.

Ignoring the bad logic, has your hypothesis(whatever it is) ever happened before?

[dailykoff]

53. Look, if you want to believe in the Great Evil Arab, go for it.

But that isn't who leveled the Trade Center.

[greyl]

80. Your argument in post 45 was:

"If it hasn't happened in the past, it can't happen."

That's a clear falsehood.

Has your hypothesis(whatever it is) ever happened before?

[Chomp]

102. That's a disgraceful,

dishonest argument and I suspect you know it.

Don't believe in MIHOP = Belief on the Great Evil Arab.

What a crock of shit.

[KJF]

52. Simultaneous hijackings

The "Dawson's Field" hijackings involved four planes, but, due to a revolt on one plane, only three were successful. Sound familiar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

[dailykoff]

54. Thanks Kevin, you're a wiz! :-)

[Jazz2006]

105. What does it mean to be "tombstoned"? n/t

[greyl]

106. It means banned from DU.

When you click on a banned person's profile icon " ", you'll see this:

[Jazz2006]

108. Ahhhh. Thanks. I've never seen that before. n/t

[rastafan]

23. Loose Change is full of garbage science

and takes a great deal of liberty with the facts.
Certainly not recommended.

The website, debunking911 looks like a government shill website.
They must have cause for concern to go to all that effort.

[Debunking911]

25. Tucker Carlson loves Jones...

The fact is Jones helps Bush by letting him conflate this conspiracy with his real conspiracies. Why do you think Tucker Carlson is the only moron to have Jones on his show? Tuckers not a government shill??? You think hes looking for "Truth"... Heh!

[Jazz2006]

55. Not only full of garbage science but also full of

garbage that it presents as 'facts' which obviously are not factual at all.

While the production is better done than most of the conspiracy nuts manage, it is still full of crap and is blatantly dishonest at times.

It basically repeats all of the same nonsense that has been debunked repeatedly elsewhere, but with music, voiceover and video. It conveniently misquotes, misreads, draws comparisons where none exist, and ignores inconvenient facts.

A few examples:

1) It says that "not even the official autopsy list for flight 77 lists the hijackers" - but the list it cites was not an "official autopsy list" at all.

2) It describes Larry Silverstein as "the man who purchased the WTC in July 2001" - but of course, he didn't purchase the WTC in July 2001 or at any other time.

3) The narrative says "at 11:43, WCPO local news reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport..." but the document allegedly backing up this assertion says no such thing (if you bother to actually read it). It says that ONE plane landed. But this doesn't stop the producers from going off into a lengthy, patently ridiculous and wholly unfounded theory about an airplane switch, secretive landings, passengers being shuffled off to a NASA research centre, and ultimately being killed, I guess, by the government. Totally off the wall and totally unsupported by anything so inconvenient as a single fact, mind you.

4) Hilariously funny is the bit about the gold stored in vaults in the towers. The narrative says "Reuters reported it was discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck along with several cars in a delivery tunnel under the WTC".

Then goes on to say, "Let me get this straight. Gold from the WTC was found under WTC5 in an empty delivery truck with an empty escort of cars. I think it's safe to say that they were running away from the south tower. Question is how did they know to flee with their stash?"

However, Reuters actually said no such thing. In fact, the graphic purporting to support this particularly ridiculous bit is an email from someone called "The Infamous Vinnie Gangbon" or something similar, forwarding a New York Daily News story. And even the NYDN story doesn't say what the narrative says.

What is actually says, if you pause the film to read it is this:

"Construction workers cleared a delivery tunnel that runs underneath the complex... Officials got to the gold through that tunnel yesterday after workers hauled out a 10 wheel truck, several crushed cars and mounds of debris. ...

(it then goes on to discuss the many, many hours of work undertaken until dawn to clear a path to the vaults)

"Workers built and graded a ramp into the delivery tunnel.. A small bulldozer knocked down a wall inside the tunnel and a Brinks armoured truck drove in... later coming out with the first load of gold."

As anyone with half a brain can see, the gold was NOT "discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck" and there was no "empty escort of cars", etc etc.

Moreover, anyone can read the other news stories at the time which make it clear that the gold was recovered from the Bank of Nova Scotia vaults, which they got access to through the delivery tunnel.

5) Another ridiculous bit: the narrator, in a conspiratorial tone, wonders what they are "hiding" at the Pentagon in a big "box" that a group of men are carrying, and suggests that it is a large piece of evidence being hidden.

It's obvious that it's a tent, for crying out loud, exactly like those seen in use all over the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into it, photos of which have been posted on other threads here.

6) In early scenes, the video shows copious amounts of paper and other lightweight debris being blown all over the place (when it suits the purpose of the video to do so) and yet in later scenes, the narrator expresses incredulity that something made of a "fragile material called paper" could possibly survive. Such a blatant contradiction that I'm surprised that even the conspiracy theory "believers" haven't noticed it.

And it just goes on and on and on and on, ad infinitum, full of nonsense and utter crap, just hoping that people will be sucked into the nonsense without actually looking at the facts and realities... and obviously such tactics work on people who do not look at the underlying "supporting" documents or the underlying foundation that the message pretends to rely upon.

That's enough for now. Like I said above, it's better done than most of the conspiracy theory videos in terms of production, sound, and such... but it's still complete and utter crap.

It, like all of the other conspiracy theory nonsense, takes attention away from the real questions that should be asked about September 11/01.

And that just helps Bush & Co. to continue not having to answer the real questions.

[Debunking911]

56. Do you have more stuff like this

Do you have more stuff like this and can I E-mail you? What's your E?

http://www.debunking911.com

[dailykoff]

58. Plenty where that came from.

Don't forget to wash your hands. :)

[Jazz2006]

61. Care to refute anything I said in that post, dailykoff?

I don't think you can, since everything I said is true.

So, why are you working so hard at trying to discredit me rather than trying to address the points made?

[Jazz2006]

63. You did the same thing on that other thread, dailykoff....

On the "Did 300+ firefighters believe they were on a suicide mission inside WTC?" thread, you asked me to provide details about my personal experiences in certain events, while insinuating that I had none, of course. I provided the details and wandered off, never to address the facts or the topic again.

I think I'm starting to understand your M.O.

[dailykoff]

65. You didn't name the building or the date of the fire,

and you didn't give an explanation for the explosions. Not much to go on there.

[Jazz2006]

68. I certainly did...

I gave you the time and location and the details. What more do you want?

You chose not to respond.

Gee.... big surprise, that.

If you wanted additional details, one would think you might have asked.

You didn't.

So..... who is kidding who here?

[dailykoff]

70. No name, no date, no cause. See for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=80778&mesg_id=81578

And a kitchen fire in an apartment building is not a highrise fire.

[Jazz2006]

72. Nonsense, dailykoff

I gave you the info, you chose not to respond for days nor to ask for further info until this very moment.


I answered your question. You didn't respond. All of a sudden, days later on a wholly unrelated thread, you pretend that I didn't respond when I clearly did.

Nice try. But nobody's going to buy it, I'm sure.

[Jazz2006]

73. Do you not know the meaning of the term "high rise"?

And do you really want to argue this here instead of on the thread that you shied away from after I answered your question and you pretended that I hadn't?


I'd suggest it's better argued on the other thread in which it came up - you know, the one that you've been studiously avoiding since then - but it makes no difference to me. It's just that more in context there.

If you have something to say about my response to your queries, which you still haven't actually repsonded to on the thread in which you asked them, please say so.

It looks like you're just blathering about here without addressing the facts or the posts at all.

[Jazz2006]

77. Any time you're ready....

to refute what I've said here and on the other thread..... I'm waiting.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

59. Debunk - Those are only a few of my

personal observations of the absurdities and anomolies of the video called "Loose Change" - I watched it in its entirety several times and it didn't take much to pause, backtrack, read, and research the numerous outlandish lies that it perpetuates.

There are many more.

I wouldn't mind you emailing me at all, but I am hesitant to post an email address here because I don't know how to delete a post and I suspect that I would want to delete it rather quickly rather than risk being bombarded by conspiracy theorists.

(edit: people like dailykoff, for instance)

[Make7]

67. You can both send and receive Private Messages now.

Just click the by the username in a post to open a blank message form that can be filled out and sent to that person.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

74. Thanks. Despite being a lawyer and a pretty competent researcher, the ..

internal workings of a website that utilizes some kind of undefined "escalating rankings" scale might well have eluded me to date as I just haven't taken the time or expended the effort to go back and forth to find current rankings, etc.

(not to mention the time lag between writing a post and reading other ones, of course.)

So, thanks.

I will, no doubt, get around to figuring out the private mail thing some time soon.

[Make7]

75. First rule of DU is ....

... don't talk about DU.    (Oh, shit. I'm thinking of something else.)

The secret to DU's interface is to use the 'My DU' link at the top of every page. (Well, almost every page.) That brings up a page that lists the posts you have made in the last 48 hours and indicates how many replies each post has received. You can click on where it says [x replies] and it will take you to a page that gives links right to the responses. The My Posts section only lists posts for 48 hours from the time you make them though, after that it gets a little more difficult to keep track of things.

Also, further down on your 'My DU' page, are a list of Private Messages that have been sent to you. (You'll probably need to scroll down the page to see them.) I think by default it only lists 20, but there's a link to show more than that.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of DU's interface. But it is different than most other boards, so many people that are used to something else don't like it at first. Or ever.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

76. Thanks....

I'm still figuring out the intricacies.

It is different than what I am used to, but it's manageable so far. It appears that my options also change now that I'm a donor instead of a mere visitor? (Well, it says that my donor status won't show up until the next business day and we're in the midst of a long weekend, so that remains to be seen). But if it's true, it is apparently also supposed to mean that certain functions which are currently unavailable to me (like searching, etc.) will also be available.

And maybe that will help with the navigation issues that I see as a rookie here.

I am not complaining exactly ... just saying that it is less user friendly and more difficult to navigate than it should be/could be/should want to be.

[Jazz2006]

78. I'm beginning to "get it" although I have to say that it is not ....

even remotely close to being as user friendly as some other venues I frequent.

I had previously figured out the "My DU" bit, which was useful for figuring out where I'd been (and excellent to ascertain whether any responses were posted but not at all useful for figuring out where threads are going or for figuring out that long timers might purport to "respond" to a post on an entirely different thread and act as though that was a legitimate response).

So, I still have some "getting used to" to do, it seems.

Still, it isn't as bad as it first appearsed when one was wholly uninitiated, and I suspect it will grow on me.

[Jazz2006]

79. Grrrrrr -

I just posted that but for some reason, it did not include at least 50% of what I actually wrote.
I think I messed up halfway through and my fingers just hit the wrong keys, but the point is that I don't know how to delete it and I don't how to replace it with what I actually wrote.


Grrrrr.


I'll have to work on that.


But it still annoys me.

[Make7]

81. There is a one hour edit window for posts.

In the bottom right hand corner of the post there is an Edit link. You can actually rewrite the entire post with an edit. To start over just select the all the text (ctrl A) and hit the 'delete' or 'backspace' key. Now you have a blank slate.

You can't actually delete a post. But you can erase its message and put "self-delete", "deleted by poster", "nevermind", etc. in the subject line.

Usually if there is no text in a message, a "nt" or "n/t" is added to the end of the subject line to let people know. Or sometimes you'll see "eom" for end of message.

One note on editing etiquette: if you edit a post after someone has already responded, it is customary to make a note within the post as to what has been changed.

- Make7

BTW - if you lose text when posting, sometimes you can use back through the pages with your webbrowser to the page that contained the original form for your post. Copy the entire thing, then browse to what actually got posted, hit Edit, select all, and paste. That might get you back to where you started. Maybe. I think.

[Jazz2006]

82. Thank you. I understand the window of opportunity for editing, and

I am long acquainted with the etiquette of not editing posts after someone has responded to the initial post, so I don't do that. And I also recognize that the hour time limit is very generous. But I was actually just trying to add to a post immediately after I had posted it when I realized that it did not include a couple of paragraphs which I had written.

I think I may have hit the wrong keys and somehow deleted or overwritten what I had typed.

Oh well, it's not a big deal - it just bugged me that I couldn't find it easily and couldn't fix it easily (i.e. before anyone responded to it).

Thus, the grrrrr.


(but I'll get used to it, I'm sure)

[greyl]

83. ot:

(on topic)

[Debunking911]

89. I understand

I just made enough posts to be able to PM on this board so I PMed you.

[dailykoff]

57. Deck chairs on the Titanic.

None of this addresses the obvious, provable fact that buildings were demolished with explosives with the complicity of Rudy, Larry, and the FDNY.

But blather on.

[Jazz2006]

60. Sure.

Except for the inconvenient fact that there are no obvious, provable facts that buildings were demolished with explosives with the complicity of Rudy, Larry and the FDNY.

But blather on.

[Jazz2006]

62. Like I said, dailykoff,

if you have anything to refute what I posted above, please feel free to offer it up.

I don't think you can, because everything I've said is true.

If it makes you feel better to try to discredit me on a personal level with a flippant, stupid, and wholly unfounded remark, well, knock yourself out.

[dailykoff]

64. None of it makes the least difference

to the central facts of what happened on 9/11 or who did it, so I'll pass. But thanks anyway.

[Jazz2006]

69. No, what you mean is

that you haven't a coherent response to what I've said above, so you'll pretend that it means nothing.

Awfully transparent, that.

If you really thought that what I've said was without merit, you'd take the time to try to refute it.

You can't refute it because it's true.

Thus, you back away under false pretenses and hope that nobody notices how lame your retreat is.

Luckily for you, there are many here who share your brand of willful blindness.

Luckily for me, there are not many in the real world with powers of analytical, logical, or rational thinking who share your ridiculous brand of willful blindness.

(Just like your nonsense posts above relating to the other thread which you haven't managed to respond to directly but which you pretend to have responded to here. Pretty lame, that.)

[Debunking911]

90. If it's so provable and obvious

Why haven't any of you done it yet??? You're had 4 years now...

[Kai]

66. I can't understand why

anyone would want to watch Loose Change II when all you need to know is in the government reports. sheesh!

But, just in case you're curious you can view it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

:smoke:

[Jazz2006]

71. I can't understand why you'd suggest people not view it ...

I can't understand why you would propose that people ought not view it.

It is clearly unadulterated crap to anyone with half a brain.

I think that everyone should view it, and that anyone viewing it should engage a few brain cells, as that is all it takes to realize how ridiculous and dishonest it is.

(Obviously, though, there are many, many, many people who do not engage the brain before watching a video and who are easily influenced by utter crap - see any number of other threads here about that very subject, for instance. You can't have it both ways.)


Oh, in retrospect, I guess you're saying that people should view it because they are too stupid to see how dishonest and how crap it is and that's okay with you?

Oh, whatever..... all I can say is read, learn, research, form your own opinions and don't be fooled by wankers and spazzes on the internet.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KJF]

85. Not quite

I agreed with five and six and two is technically correct, although it doesn't make much difference whether he was the owner of all the complex or the owner of some of it and the lessee of the rest.

As for (1), the hijackers' DNA allegedly taken from the Pentagon wasn't actually identified, but neither was any hijacker's DNA, although some of the hijackers' families probably would want to know for sure.

As for (3), I don't go a bundle on the Cleveland Airport Mystery, but you're not doing it justice.

I don't see anything hilariously funny about the gold:

CACHE OF GOLD FOUND AT WTC - NY Daily News
By GREG GITTRICH, THOMAS ZAMBITO and LEO STANDORA

Workers at Ground Zero unearthed last night a buried treasure of gold, hidden for weeks under the ruins of the World Trade Center.

As a small army of federal agents with shotguns and automatic rifles stood guard, city cops and firefighters packed two Brink's armored trucks with the lode.

The sources said the gold was found in a delivery tunnel under 5 World Trade Center.
http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/international-banking/gold-scam/cache-of-gold-found-in-wtc.txt

It was picked up by some other papers, for example the Indian Tribune:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011102/world.htm#5
The Wall Street Journal:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001399

Maybe the story is true, maybe the New York Daily News got it wrong, but it is a real story, reported by real journalists who really interviewed the people involved, so I don't find it funny.

Why did you pick these six things? They're hardly the worst part of Loose Change - my personal "highlight" would be the 9 feet of reinforced concrete the "Cruise Missile" passed through.

[Jazz2006]

87. You seem to miss my point

Re: the gold. I realize, of course, that it is true that gold was recovered from vaults on the site. The point is that Loose Change gets it so spectacularly wrong.

The narrative says "Reuters reported it was discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck along with several cars in a delivery tunnel under the WTC". Then goes on to say, "Let me get this straight. Gold from the WTC was found under WTC5 in an empty delivery truck with an empty escort of cars. I think it's safe to say that they were running away from the south tower. Question is how did they know to flee with their stash?"

That is so far from the truth as to be utterly laughable.

The Daily News got the story right. It did not say what the narrator was saying. That, again, is my point. Even while panning across a Daily News story and pretending to be delivering information that it reported, he says something completely different than what the story actually said. The workers had removed empty vehicles and such from the delivery tunnel to gain access to the vaults. Once they had access, they brought in Brinks trucks and recovered gold. That is a far cry from the picture the narrator tries to paint of gold being found in vehicles attempting to flee.

Re: the hijackers - again, my point is that the video is dishonest at worst, sloppy at best, in its description here as it is trying to suggest that the hijackers were not really on the airplanes because they were not on the list of people identified via autopsies, instead of just coming out and saying that they were not identified because there were no DNA samples to compare them to.

Re: the Cleveland airport. It was so convoluted and ridiculous, and all based on the first lie that it tells, that I didn't bother to try to "do it justice". It is a wild and fanciful tale designed to suggest that passengers from all of the hijacked flights ended up in Cleveland somehow - presumably so that they could be slaughtered and disappeared by the government - and it is all predicated upon the first lie it tells.

[Debunking911]

88. Check your PM jass2006

Check your PM. I sent you a message

[Jazz2006]

96. Thanks, got it ;) n/t

[KJF]

94. Gold

The NY Daily News says:
"The sources said the gold was found in a delivery tunnel under 5 World Trade Center."
This means it wasn't in the vault (which wasn't in the tunnel), but in the vehicles found destroyed in the tunnel. Which is what the narrator says.
Again, I'm not saying the Daily News report was correct.

Regarding the Cleveland Airport Mystery, have you actually read it?
Again, I don't agree with it.

[Jazz2006]

95. I disagree, Kevin.

The stories are clear that they removed vehicles while trying to clear the delivery tunnel. The stories are clear that this took many, many hours. The stories are clear that after they removed the vehicles and various and sundry debris, they were able to get to the vaults. Your conclusion that "This means it wasn't in the vault (which wasn't in the tunnel), but in the vehicles found destroyed in the tunnel. Which is what the narrator says." is faulty.

The Loose Change video shows the Daily News story and says something entirely different than what is in the story itself.

You can test this yourself by pausing the video at the appropriate time and reading the actual story it purports to be relying upon. It is night and day/poles apart.

And re the Cleveland bit, yes, I've read it and I also do not agree with it.

The Loose Change video is wholly dishonest in its presentation of the theory, though, which was my point.

[KJF]

97. No

I'm not going to go back and forth on this, so this is my last post on the location of the gold.

You write:
"they removed vehicles while trying to clear the delivery tunnel."
"this took many, many hours."
"after they removed the vehicles and various and sundry debris, they were able to get to the vaults."
This may be true and may be what some of the stories say, but it is certainly not what the Daily News reported - it specifically says that the gold was in the tunnel - "The sources said the gold was found in a delivery tunnel under 5 World Trade Center." Whichever way you cut, it one article says the gold was in the tunnel, not the vaults.

What they've done is taken the true story of the vehicles abandoned in the tunnel and a (probably) slightly incorrect one about the location of the gold and conflated them.

The author of the Cleveland Airport Mystery, Woody Box, who is a DU member, said that there bit about the story was very good (from memory, I couldn't find it during a quick search). IMHO it uses a similar technique - selective misinterpretation.

[Jazz2006]

98. It doesn't say that at all.

As much as you seem to wish it were so.

And, in any event, that's not what the story in the Loose Change video says - which the narrator totally and entirely misrepresents.

As for the Cleveland story, again, look at the Loose Change video and try to tell me that it isn't an entire crock of shit as presented.

[KJF]

99. I know I said that was my last post, but...

The New York Daily News article can be found here:
http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/international-banking/gold-scam/cache-of-gold-found-in-wtc.txt

Key quote:
"The sources said the gold was found in a delivery tunnel under 5 World Trade Center."

I don't agree with the Cleveland Airport Mystery, but I find phrases like "crock of shit" are unhelpful and divisive. The posters which accomplish most on here tend to be those that adopt moderate attitudes, which I try to copy.

[Jazz2006]

100. Yes, well, having viewed the

video in its entirety repeatedly, and having paused. backtracked, reviewed and replayed repeatedly and having taken the time (many hours) and put in the effort to actually see what it was really saying, and having actually taken the time to review the purported evidence upon which it relied, and seeing so many outrageous lies, misdirections, and instances of dishonesty, I'm sorry to have to report that using the phrase "crock of shit" is as polite as I can possibly be and, frankly, I think that's as polite a term that anyone could use in describing the video if one is both educated and honest with oneself.

I could have said much worse.

[Jazz2006]

101. And...

as an aside,

if you really believe that the story is that the gold was discovered inside of vehicles in the tunnel, you're clearly deluded.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Debunking911]

92. Who was this directed to

Because I'm a flamin liberal who can't stand the right. Anyone who believe 911 conspiracy theorist just because it's against the neo-cons is just as bad as the republicans who believed Clinton sold secrets to china.

In fact I think anyone who believes this dogmatically is helping the right. They will conflate this in the future with Bush's real crimes and nothing will get investigated. Jones was on Tucker Carlson because he wanted to make the left look loony and not because he wanted truth. Do you think Tucker Carlson was doing something heroic??? Do you think he wanted to call Bush a murderer? Have you seen that interview?

You can help him directly. I'm sure he has a message board you can help make us look crazy in.

Two can play this game. I rather not. Character assassination helps noone. It's also a tool of the right.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chomp]

103. Kai

your "comic" contributions to this thread are an embarrassment. I feel embarrassed for you.

[Debunking911]

104. Typical reply...

An insult has yet to win an argument. Insults are three legged stools for social midget. You can't prop up your argument on them.

[greyl]

107. DU's excellent quality control has taken care of that problem. :)