FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A viewer guide to Loose Change 2
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject: A viewer guide to Loose Change 2 Reply with quote

I recommend this guide for all those who are interested in the truth:

http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignore this person.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kbo234 writes:
Quote:
Ignore this person.


Typical and unsurprising reply from an uncouth person.

Ignore me if you wish, but do look at the link.

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTS

Please read the transcript of Richard Grove on this thread

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2035&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=0

as I have today and then tell me you have absolutely NO doubts about the official 9/11 story. When you add up the physical and visible evidence of the WTC and the Pentagon along with the testimonies of business people like Richard Grove, firefighters, airline pilots, scientists and other professionals, there can be only one answer......the official story of 9/11 is in doubt and there must be a new independent inquiry. There are well over 300 smoking guns or serious doubts to do with the official 9/11 story and for you, CTS, to continue to hold your position of having no doubts at all with the official story, you have to completely prove us wrong on every single doubt we have.

So, my friend, when you have read what Richard Grove has to say, will you please tell us straight that you have absolutely NO doubts at all with the official 9/11 story....or that you have some doubts which means we can have some reasonable and meaningful debate and discussion with you.

_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: CTS ..................he/she's/they're back!

Justin states:-


Quote:
which means we can have some reasonable and meaningful debate and discussion with you.


I look forward to that!

Check this out CTS and confirm that you still have no doubts about the official version of 911:-


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1363085081657572837&q=911

Peace & truth

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
Kbo234 writes:
Quote:
Ignore this person.


Typical and unsurprising reply from an uncouth person.

Ignore me if you wish, but do look at the link.

CTS


CTS or CT advocate as you should more properly be called, I have been rude to you once but maybe, in hindsight, not rude enough. You practice impeccable manners but there is no truth in you.

You attack every criticism of the official position, even those that are proven way beyond all reasonable doubt (controlled demolition of WTC 7 for instance). Your purpose is clearly to divert 'guests' to this site to government disinformation in order to reduce the effectiveness of our campaign.
You do not engage with any 'difficult' information. You deal with irrefutable material by temporarily stepping back from the fray, only to return again later hammering away at the same old worn-out rubbish.

Your calculated good manners cannot conceal the fact that you engage with this site in a way that is essentially dishonest. Behind your politeness I perceive darkness, deviousness and deceit.
By the rules and accessibilty of this site, we cannot shut you up.....but you and your playmates should understand that you will not shut us up either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
orestes
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

“Loose Change 2nd Edition” begins with a dedication.



I hope you’ll judge for yourself how the video portrays the victims of 9/11.



This is how the guide opens. With an insult. And it continues that way.
For example: " 01:14:09,
First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center in July, 2001.
I wonder if there’s any chance that this would be coming up if his name was “Larry Jones.” " That's that then. Jews never commit crimes, and anyone who says they do is an anti-Smite.

"After September 11th, Silverstein demanded $7.2 billion dollars form his insurers,
“Demanded?” Yes, I hear he threatened to “pull” the chairs out from under them if they didn’t comply. Presumably humour.

Claiming that each plane counted as a separate act of terrorism.
A sound business decision.
"
There is nothing to be said to this. Nothing rests on the interpretation of the detail of Silverstein's claim.

"What justification do we have for bombing Afghanistan?
The Taliban admitted to harboring Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, who was wanted by the U.S. for the embassy bombings.
Foreign affairs for the ignorant. To use this uncritically speaks volumes for the guy's sophistication.

01:12:17
Oh, that's right. The Bin Laden confession tape. Assumption that we would not have invaded Afghanistan without that tape."
This is not correct, that assumption was not being made. The claim ismade that the tape was used to justify the bombing. This is true.

Here he says:

"
Indeed. After all, not even the official autopsy for Flight 77 lists the hijackers,

Nor does it list the two-year-old on that flight, whose remains were not identified. The report you refer to is of the body parts and tissue samples positively identified by the pathologists. DNA analysis of the hijacker’s remains could not be done because that requires a reference sample. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the 19 Arab men identified by the FBI did board and take control of the flights.
The two sources he gives do not justify what he says. The first one is just a link to a letter confirming the delivery of the informartion that these were the 58 people identified as being on the flight. So what? Well, the second one is a link to the 911 myths site itself (er, isn't that what we're reading?). This site says that it was only the people who were identified who were on the list. Ah! They couldn't get any DNA samples from the hijackers! But that's funny, because he links to Thompson's terror timeline which documents an extraordinarily detailed amount of evidence about the hijackers whereabouts and the FBI's contact. But they couldn't find a DNA sample?

Please also consider that this person, by his own admission in this essay, turns up to events handing out flyers with random comments from people on forums (not the makers of loose change) and incites them to 'let the loose change people know what you think of them', ie the makers of loose change. Is this a person you trust?

Also consider that he claims cell phone calls were common before 9/11 based on one example of such a call. Then, merely three sentences later he justifies the press reports that it was now possible to use cell phones in aircraft by saying 'yes, because, it became reliable and cost-effective and the demand was there'. Uh. 'Reliable' vs 'Common'. If it was common, doesn't that mean using them was reliable? And if it became cost-effective wouldn't it mean that there was new technology? But why would they need new technology if it was already 'common'? Unless he means it became cost-effective because the phone companies changed their charge? Rolling Eyes

There may be some valuable information in this esssay but I for one will not read it. It is shameful and abusive and written by a childish man. The majority of it is insults, not arguments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: Re: A viewer guide to Loose Change 2 Reply with quote

ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
I recommend this guide for all those who are interested in the truth:

http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

CTS



CTS, Im starting to worry about you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madthumbs
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:10 pm    Post subject: Re: A viewer guide to Loose Change 2 Reply with quote

prole art threat wrote:
ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
I recommend this guide for all those who are interested in the truth:

http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

CTS



CTS, Im starting to worry about you.


You should worry more about Loose Change. It's another worthless 911 movie that they wanted us to see.

It was on Fox News - good tip off. Dylan and company are surrounding themselves with Zionist influences -STILL. We've got to stop being ignorant to the fact that there are agents who were planted to divert us. Beware of the ones whining about use not being united.

_________________
-opposingdigits.com-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:39 pm    Post subject: A sheep in wolfs clothing ? Reply with quote

Just a quick thought for all those involved in this 'discussion' with CTS.

From a bigger perspective, I can only conclude that CTS is here to make the movement look good, given the clear lack of any real reasoning in CTS's arguments. Therefore, he is actually a sheep in wolfs clothing.

Am I right CTS ? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to agree!

Anybody who comes on here without much of an argument can only make the 9/11 look better to the casual visitor.

But does that mean that we should stick our fingers in our ears and shout, 'nuuuh-nuuuh-nuh-nuuuh-nuh - can't hear you!' to anybody who presents evidence we don't like very much because it simply doesn't suit our cause.

Let's just say for example that in the unlikely event that conclusive independent proof that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon did emerge (possible but unlikely, granted), denying it does not embrace the objectivity of seeking the truth.

You can't seek the truth if you have programmed yourself as to what the truth is. We are the six blind men describing an elephant so long as the truth is hidden. None of us is right and none of us is wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin writes:
Quote:
So, my friend, when you have read what Richard Grove has to say, will you please tell us straight that you have absolutely NO doubts at all with the official 9/11 story....or that you have some doubts which means we can have some reasonable and meaningful debate and discussion with you.


Justin, I have skimmed the Richard Grove tract. I don't claim to follow everything he says, but he seems to be saying that he has had experience of rogue companies in America who are breaking the law. The claim that such companies exist is, surely, not news. There have always been such companies in America, and elsewhere, eg, Enron and Parmalat, to name but two, and, unfortunately, there always will be. However, what he fails to establish is what this has to do with the happenings on 9/11.

You ask me if, having read the Richard Grove tract, I still have any doubts about 9/11. Well, I have looked at the evidence, and I have no doubts that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, that the Twin Towers were brought down by a gravity-led collapse, and that WTC7 also collapsed because of damage done by the collapse of the Twin Towers plus the effects of fires on many floors. The evidence to support my statements is overwhelming.

If you want me to back up my claims, I can direct you to sites that will substantiate what I have said.

OK?

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
Justin writes:
Quote:
So, my friend, when you have read what Richard Grove has to say, will you please tell us straight that you have absolutely NO doubts at all with the official 9/11 story....or that you have some doubts which means we can have some reasonable and meaningful debate and discussion with you.


Justin, I have skimmed the Richard Grove tract. I don't claim to follow everything he says, but he seems to be saying that he has had experience of rogue companies in America who are breaking the law. The claim that such companies exist is, surely, not news. There have always been such companies in America, and elsewhere, eg, Enron and Parmalat, to name but two, and, unfortunately, there always will be. However, what he fails to establish is what this has to do with the happenings on 9/11.

You ask me if, having read the Richard Grove tract, I still have any doubts about 9/11. Well, I have looked at the evidence, and I have no doubts that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, that the Twin Towers were brought down by a gravity-led collapse, and that WTC7 also collapsed because of damage done by the collapse of the Twin Towers plus the effects of fires on many floors. The evidence to support my statements is overwhelming.

If you want me to back up my claims, I can direct you to sites that will substantiate what I have said.

OK?

CTS


So in other words Go Back To Sleep, Nothing to See Here!!!

Oh please!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Justin, I have skimmed the Richard Grove tract


Well theres a large problem right there:

But "DO read the Loose Change Debunk site"?

Eventually, we come to learn there is no such thing as a fact:

Instead, there is mutable consensual belief created reality

As a matter of record, I have read "loose change" debunked quite extensively

Anyone suprised by the simple truth that Loose change is no more the truth than anything else was deluding themselves in the first place: it is simply an attempt at discerning the truth: no matter with what bias, or with what affinity

Equally, anyone convinced by the debunk site that the official illusion was the truth: was looking to be convinced anyway

None of which makes it even remotely likely that the impact of the planes caused the towers to collapse, or that building 7 collapsed as if by majic, or that we know what happened at the pentagon, or that flight 93 wasnt shot down at altitude

But what it does do is reveal who really gives a * about freedom, justice, truth, and the nature of the world we live in and how it expresses our humanity

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTS

So, you are telling me you see nothing at all with which to question the official 9/11 story. If that is the case, you, like George Galloway, are a complete and utter fool! At best you are lacking in commonsense. I have talked to eyewitnesses, professional pilots and disaster managers and they tell me that they have very real problems with what the U.S. government says happened on that day. But best of all, it's just plain old commonsense - by simply looking at the visible damage at the Pentagon and the speed of collapse of 1, 2 & 7, this is what tells any sane and reasonably intelligent person that something is very wrong with the official story. You cannot change the Laws of Physics for just one day.

I for one will not be wasting any more time or effort with you. As I said before, you are either a fool, in which case I pity you, or you have another agenda in which case you should be ashamed of yourself.

_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pikey wrote:
Quote:
Re: CTS ..................he/she's/they're back!

Justin states:-

Quote:
which means we can have some reasonable and meaningful debate and discussion with you.


I look forward to that!

Check this out CTS and confirm that you still have no doubts about the official version of 911:-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1363085081657572837&q=911


Thanks for your warm welcome, Pikey.

I looked at the video. It didn't play well on my computer - speech was much broken up, and it was rather long, so I did not watch it all, but it seems to me to be a re-hash of all the familiar arguments put forward by CTs. They seem superficially plausible but the debunking sites I have looked at deal, I believe, with all the arguments, one by one, point by point. These debunking sites do a professional job. By that, I mean that they look at each claim and then analyse it, eg putting quotations in context, quoting each comment in full to establish what the speaker really intended saying, and so on. The CT sites, on the other hand, go in for selective picking of the evidence and wilfully ignore anything that does not support their argument. This is not a fair way to debate. This is not the way to seek the truth.

Loose Change 2 is a good example. The author of the critique of LC 2 says:

".....in this hour and twenty-minute video I counted 81 errors of fact (statements like “1+1 = 3”). In addition, I counted 345 instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs. And that’s only counting errors of commission. The errors of omission are more serious."

These are serious allegations.

As I have said before, if you really want the truth - not necessarily the whole truth - but a large part of it, then study the debunking sites:

http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.ht ml

I am not a supporter of George Bush or of the US Government.

CTS


Last edited by ConspiracyTheorySceptic on Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:54 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pikey

PS I meant to add what I've said before - that the mainstream of scientists and engineers, not just in the US but in the whole world, believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by a gravity-led collapse. Personally, I would rather believe people who know what they are talking about, especially structural engineers.

The report on WTC 7 is not out yet, but, if you look at the debunking sites you will find there plenty of evidence that WTC7 was badly damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers and from fire and was expected to collapse. There are records of the conversations between fire fighters discussing the state of the building and deciding to withdraw from the building to prevent further loss of life.

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John White states that:
Quote:
Anyone suprised by the simple truth that Loose change is no more the truth than anything else was deluding themselves in the first place: it is simply an attempt at discerning the truth: no matter with what bias, or with what affinity



John, you seem to be agreeing that LC 2 is garbage. If so, what a strange way the authors of LC 2 have adopted to try and find out the truth - by printing lies and distortions.

However, this is typical of the CT approach in their so-called pursuit of the truth. All counter arguments are dismissed as no more than a re-presentation of the Official Story, as though critics of the CT position were incapable of independent thought and judgement.

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conspiracttheorysceptic

You are not what your label describes you as - you are in fact a conspiracytheorycoward. If you believe the official version you are either a liar or an idiot. There is no middle ground. You do not seem to be an idiot so you must be a liar and an evil individual as a consequence. You are the one who believes in the most ludicrous "theories" put forward as fact by the powerful people who control the media and the government. You are therefore the Conspiracy Theorist. Why are you here?? What do you hope to achieve by talking gibberish to people who have discovered the truth about 9/11 and the enormity of the treacherous behaviour of the American authorities? You have nothing to say - we can all read your kind of drivel in the mainstream media designed to keep us in the dark. For *'s sake take your propaganda somewhere else or say something worthwhile!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No CTS, I am not saying I consider Loose Change to be "garbage": if you read my post more carefully, that is made clear

What I am saying is that truth is a far more elusive quality than simply comparing a film to a website and picking a favourite

I also made clear that Loose change representated an attempt to construct a more credible estimation of the truth than the officialy provided information

following on from this, I further expressed than anyone who considered Loose Change to be cast iron and unquestionable was a fool

However, I made exactly the same observation about the debunk site

About which you said:

CTS wrote:
They seem superficially plausible but the debunking sites I have looked at deal with, I believe, all the arguments, one by one, point by point


Your convinced by the arguments put forward by the debunk site

Thats quite alright by me, I fully understand

In contrast, I read it (and as I made clear I have extensively, at least several weeks before the creation of this thread) and find questionable assumptions and dubious conclusions in it every five minutes

Its just not that simple CTS: and the stench regarding 911 is simply not going to fade away

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kbo234 wrote:
Quote:
You attack every criticism of the official position, even those that are proven way beyond all reasonable doubt (controlled demolition of WTC 7 for instance).


Kbo234

You profess to have a physics degree, so why do you not believe the kind of people who know what they are talking about regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers, namely, structural engineers?

Structural engineers all over the world accept that the towers were brought down by a gravity-led collapse. This is the view of the mainstream of scientists and engineers.

Only one physics professor in the whole world, Prof S Jones, has come out with a different view, and he has been disowned even by members of his own physics faculty.

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote:
You profess to have a physics degree, so why do you not believe the kind of people who know what they are talking about regarding the collapse of the Twin Towers, namely, structural engineers?

Structural engineers all over the world accept that the towers were brought down by a gravity-led collapse. This is the view of the mainstream of scientists and engineers.


This is the view of bought or threatened, politically driven engineers like the guy who wrote the article in 'Popular Mechanics' for its Zionist editor Chertoff, brother of the Director For Homeland Security. Only a fool would trust such a source.

There is no sensible explanation for the collapse of the 3 towers other than controlled demolition. The articles you are always referring to are written by persons of high intelligence. You can feel their brains hurting as they make that rubbish up. It's all c**p CTS. This is one argument you will never win.

At last week's Chicago Conference there were numerous professional engineers stepping forward to say exactly the above.

The '911 Commission' while promoting their 'pancake theory' completely ignored the existence of 47 HUGE steel columns at the core of each WTC (1 and 2). You actually don't need to have a Physics degree to discern lies of the magnitude of 911 nor do you need a Physics degree to discern a paid troll.

I understand CTS, that it is not your aim to win the argument, only to undermine the credibility of our position before the eyes of guests and hence limit 911 awareness as much as possible. One day (soon, hopefully) yours will be a lost cause.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTS,

Thanx for looking at that video link. Have you read David Ray Griffin's outstanding book "The New Pearl Harbour" yet? When you have (I did suggest this to you about a month ago!), let us know what you make of that.

No high rise steel frame building had ever collapsed on its footprint prior to 911 and many of those that have been severely damaged (re: Madrid Tower fire) remained standing. Remember no plane hit WTC7 and there was only a small fire in WTC7. The sprinkler system and the NYFD had all morning and afternoon to put the fire out.it! Silverstein gave orders to the NYFD to "pull it".

You have been accused of being a coward on here. How us meeting you CTS in person? Where do you live? Suggest a time and a meeting venue and then we can check you out!

Peace & truth

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Silverstein gave orders to the NYFD to "pull it".

Silverstein is not in a position to give orders to anyone relating to the action to be taken regarding a burning building, whether he owns it or not. It is the job of the experts in the Fire Service to make such decisions. His statement was the gibberish of a man floundering to cover the lies he is a part of. Would you or anyone you know give orders to the fire service who came to deal with a fire at your home? The man is pure evil and a lousy liar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTS,
Quote:
Only one physics professor in the whole world, Prof S Jones, has come out with a different view, and he has been disowned even by members of his own physics faculty.


Jeff King studied physics and engineering at MIT:

http://secure.reopen911.org/video/cte_07_lo.mov

You don't need to be a professor of physics to understand free-fall physics. As regards examining the available evidence, it is simply a case of understanding the difference between:

Soften
Plasticise
Weaken
Bend
Crack

and

Melt
Explode
Eject
Pulverised

To give you a clue, the bottom group words are that were used to describe conditions during and after the collapse of the towers and are associated with high energy levels. The top group of words are the language used by most people (including in the NIST report) to explain the collapses and are words associated with lower energy levels. Other opinions are explained by 1 or more of the following factors:

1) Fear of losing one's job
2) Fear of losing one's life
3) Other miscellaneous threats
4) Benefitting from pay-offs
5) Denial because the truth is too upsetting
6) Apathy
7) Blind ignorance

Now, it took me 3 years to see this clearly, so I can accept people struggling with this. But all you really need is a dictionary and the videos of the news reports of the day and the following reports about molten metal etc. A physics A level is enough to be authoritative about the truth on this particular issue. To suggest otherwise is to similar to suggesting "Well, look I can fly - because the 'law of freefall' won't apply to me - I am a professor of structural engineering and if I say Gravity behaves this way on a Thursday - it will!"

I think you should study to to-ing and fro-ing on the Physics forum, which I have posted links to several times.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=21554df39f1b7c808cb28a1d2264b4c1& showtopic=3108&st=0

This covers most of the nonesense arguments.

Regards

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to furiously argue with the likes of CTS
Now I just feel sorry for them having to adopt that self-denying supine enter-my-rear position where they are dependent on overtrained and over-specialised experts to tell them what's real and what isn't
Any person with a slight observational ability and an iota of commonsense can see what went down with the demolition of the towers
Anybody with a sense of his or her own power or knowledge of how things are doesn't need some bottle-fed teat-denied expert to risk their career and pension coming out against the official line
Look what's happened to those who counter the official line down through history. They all laughed at....Giordano Bruno - burnt him at the stake
Foe god sake, CTS, give up with the whimpering simpering pathos, and get a life that belongs to you and you alone

There - without a single * Asterisk, JHR, does that please you Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Quote:
Other opinions are explained by 1 or more of the following factors:

1) Fear of losing one's job
2) Fear of losing one's life
3) Other miscellaneous threats
4) Benefitting from pay-offs
5) Denial because the truth is too upsetting
6) Apathy
7) Blind ignorance


So all the 100s of 1000s of scientists and engineers in the US who have failed to support the CT position regarding 9/11 are all cowardly, venal, weak-minded, apathetic and ignorant?

Do you really expect people to believe such drivel?

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blackcat wrote:
Quote:
:
Silverstein gave orders to the NYFD to "pull it".


Blackcat

I'm surprised you are still flogging this argument. Do some research. go into the debunking sites I have listed earlier on this thread and get the whole whole story. You might be surprised to learn that firemen, yes, the firemen coping with WTC7 who advised Silverstein, were expecting WTC7 to collapse some hour and a half before it did. Nothing to do with explosives, but entirely the result of damage from the collapse of the nearer of the Twin Towers plus the effect of fires.

It is absolutely typical of CTs to go in for selective quotations to bolster their case. Those who are genuinely interested in the truth are not afraid to consider everything that has been said or done before trying to reach a conclusion.

Do your research, Blackcat, before rushing to judgement.

That is the only way to reach the truth.

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pikey wrote:
Quote:
No high rise steel frame building had ever collapsed on its footprint prior to 911 and many of those that have been severely damaged (re: Madrid Tower fire) remained standing


Pikey

The Twin Towers could not, in the absence of some lateral force, do otherwise than collapse straight downwards. It happens to be a fact of nature that the force of gravity points straight down.

Do some research on the Madrid Tower. It was built mainly of concrete except for parts of the upper storeys which were steel-framed. Concrete is much more resistant to the effects of fire than steel. That is why the steel in steel-framed buildings has to be fire-proofed. In the case of the Madrid tower, the concrete part survived the fire and remained standing, but the steel-framed part collapsed despite its fire-proofing which obviously proved to be inadequate, just like in the Twin Towers..

If you don't believe me, go into the debunking sites I provided earlier in this thread and you will find an actual photo showing the collapsed steel-framed sectioned of the Madrid tower.

Only by doing research and analysing the evidence can one hope to establish the truth.

CTS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kbo234 wrote:
Quote:
At last week's Chicago Conference there were numerous professional engineers stepping forward to say exactly the above.


Kbo234

Can you give the names of these engineers, their qualifications, and whatever it is they have claimed?

Are their arguments available on the internet?

Have their arguments been peer reviewed by structural engineers?

CTS


Last edited by ConspiracyTheorySceptic on Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group