loose change - any truth to it?

IPI

bonkey wrote:

The only pictures of hte south-side of hte building

The same typing error twice in the same sentence? Extremely unlikely, I should say the odds against it are probably quite very high - for a human. Consequently I would tend to discount everything this poster says. And I mean everything. Countenance none of his counter-arguments, for clearly he is in on the cover-up and quite probably a poorly written computer program constructed specifically to deal with those of us who wish to know the Truth.

bonkey

IPI wrote:

The same typing error twice in the same sentence? Extremely unlikely, I should say the odds against it are probably quite very high - for a human. Consequently I would tend to discount everything this poster says. And I mean everything. Countenance none of his counter-arguments, for clearly he is in on the cover-up and quite probably a poorly written computer program constructed specifically to deal with those of us who wish to know the Truth.

Its not true. I didn't make those typo's. You have obviously edited hte database to make it look like I did. You're all in on it. I know. And those who mightn't have been willing have clearly been threatened with even more cruel and unusual misspellings to make them toe hte line.

Its a set-up I tellya. I'm (fairly) human. I swear.

Help help! I'm being suppressed.

jc

Catsmokinpot

bonkey wrote:

Well, you do have to consider that the Bush Administration did not cause the Tonkin Affair.

Just because someone else in teh same position, quite some time ago told a few porkies with disastrous consequences shouldn't be the driving force that would make you lose trust in the current crew.

There's plenty of stuff they've managed all on their ownsome for that

the government is the same as it always was, if not worse, the employment rate is worse than it ever over there, the minimum wage is lower than it ever was. privatisation of schools, hospitals, everything makes things better for rich people while people who cant afford it are left out in the cold.

republicans and democrats while they have differing views on some different issues, their main goals are the same as they ever were, controlling and sustaining industry and oil, everything is made from oil, they've peaked oil production in many countries and already its becoming more expensive to pump it out of the ground than its worth, america has to gain control of that in order to continue their way of life.

its a two party system, democracy relies on everyones interests being represented, and as we can see from england for instance, there are several parties all with different agendas. because they have a country full of people all with different agendas, like most others in the world,

bonkey wrote:

What was censored?

The reason I'm asking is because I'd draw a comparison with Fitzgerald's (?) investigation into the Plame affair. He's come straight out and said that the public will almost-definitely never hear the details of what happened, and what he found out, because thats the way the law has to work in order to make his job possible in the first place.

With the 911 Report, we got the findings of the comission. The FEMA and NIST reports told us what their conclusions were.

The suggestion I've seen elsewhere that the public should be handed the evidence for personal scrutiny is simply unfeasible, not to mention unprecedented. Its one step short of a call to a return to mob-style justice, where the public should be allowed make their own decisions as to whether or not the law was broken. Its only one step shy of suggesting that they also be allowed dish out justice if they believe the system has failed them.

The simple truth is that in pretty-much every investigation, we don't get all the details, nor should we. So is 911 any different? Was there information which we should have been give but weren't, as opposed to information we'd like to have but which wouldn't normally form part of what we'd get from an investigation's findings?

I agree it would be nice to see the Sheraton tape, for example, but I also accept that it is not within the rights of any federal agency to release that tape (assuming they have it) and can only imagine that those who will take any excuse to knock the system would be going apoplectic about how brazenly illegal such an act was, were they to do it. The most one could expect is that the tape be returned to its owners, who in turn choose to release it. Now, this also hasn't happened, but no-one to date seems to have tracked down that road far enough to check if the Sheraton have asked for it back, or if it is unusual for the federal agencies to hold on to evidence in cases of this profile for this sort of duration.

So again, I don't rule out that there is something untoward here, but the simple existence of evidence which has not been released into the public domain doesn't establish that something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

But like I said...I can't do much/any checking at the mo, so maybe you're referring to some other censorship I haven't heard of / have forgotten.

ok first of all they wanted to block an independent commission from being setup

then when it did come out they censored over 80 per cent of the report leaving only the conclusion which was full of holes. no source information was given to anyone

there's a big gap in the report aswell http://www.infowarsmedia.com/video/clips/sept11/alex_analysis_wtc7.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4779078755753451581
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329

above is Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC complex) admitting that they demolished WTC7 on a pbs documentary called rebuilding america.

heres all this new information saying that they demolished WTC7 when they said in the 911 report that it fell because of fire damage.

there's other doubts aswell.

fire fighters/police/other public, eye witness testimony dismissed, gagging orders put on fire-fighters who say they heard & witnessed explosions


black boxes missing but passports showing up in a wreckage???...

more theories
http://suitcaseman.gnn.tv/blogs/14360/Pilot_s_911_Theory?r=5

the list really does go on.

if there was an independent investigation into not only what happened but how it happened, that wasn't censored, people would know the truth and wouldn't be worried that they were lied to again.

now ill pose a question, if you were back in school, and you had to do a science project/case study on a topic, you did all of the research, and you just wrote out your conclusion without including your research notes, sources, dates, times, conditions, would you get any marks for it? would your teacher pass you for this? no.

he/she would have no sources to scrutinise and none to substantiate and no knowledge as to whether or not any of this were true. just your word for it.

how is it unfeasible to release information?

where does censorship stop? where do you draw the line, if you start drawing lines they get thicker and thicker, pretty soon nobody knows anything. it is unprecedented for information to be given out in situations that people want to cover up. this is a subject that matters to all of the people who lost family that day, who's lives were torn apart that day, how would you like it if your son/daughter was taken away from you, don't know who to blame, you cant find those people. your told there are these people that we should go and fight, your sons and daughters are being sent to fight, all from this, but they are possibly fighting the wrong people.

"oh its ok, those people are near the people we hate so lets get them"

why shouldn't we get this evidence/information? people should be entitled to know the truth.

you think theres going to be lynch mobs? there is already, they think they're attacking the people who did this, but they arent.

i don't believe in the bible but i like this quote because it is truthfull, and its worked for me my whole life

John 8:32

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

and yes it shall set us free, for hundreds of years tyrannical governments/people in power have kept control of people using different methods and by withholding the truth, sure we now have managed to control some of this, but powerful and greedy are becoming smarter, and are circumventing law. becoming intertwined with the government. hell hitler had control of the media and news sources.

bonkey wrote:

Do you really believe the only reason the government ever witholds information from the public is to cover up lies?

yes, if someone has nothing to hide why the secrecy?

bonkey

Catsmokinpot wrote:

ok first of all they wanted to block an independent commission from being setup

So? What they wanted to do, and what they did are two entirely different things. Just because they opposed the formation of a comsission doesn't mean anything was censored. It means that had they been successful you'd be able to complain to your heart's content about their being no comission. As it is, you can complain that the Comission was retricted in the scope of what it had to investigage, but again that doesn't qualify as censorship.

Not only that, but the commission was set up in a manner that would - as much as possible - not find culpability in individuals and departments for any failures on their part. You can read as much sinistry into that as you like, but Cover-Your-Assmanship is a standard, everyday part of politics.....so arguing that its sinister in this case isn't really compelling. CYA is exactly what one would expect to see, regardless of whether or not there was malice, criminal negligence, culpability, or innocence. So showing that this is what was engaged in

then when it did come out they censored over 80 per cent of the report leaving only the conclusion which was full of holes.

From what I can find online, now that I can search again, there were 28 pages classified. Are you suggesting that the printed document released te the public - the remaining 20% - is only 7 pages long?

As for the conclusion being full of holes....I thought you said above that you didn't disagree with many of my points? The points I was making is that an awful lot of claims about there being holes utterly fail to stand up. So it seems you buy that there is no valid argument for the existence of most of these holes, but still believe they exist????

no source information was given to anyone

Thats a patently false statement, unless you're suggesting that FEMA, NIST etc. all drew up their reports from nothing.

I think what you might be saying is rewording the argument that no source evidence was made available to general members of the public who wanted to have a look. I've already addressed this point. I don't see the need to repeat it simply because you've rephrased the same complaint.

there's a big gap in the report aswell

Where? What do you mean by "gap"? What's the official explanation for it?

above is Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC complex) admitting that they demolished WTC7 on a pbs documentary called rebuilding america.

No. Its not. Above is Larry Silverstein making a comment which many have decided means that WTC7 was demolished. There is a significant difference. I admit its not helped by Silverstein not clarifying (for two years) what he meant, and then making a clarifiication that doesn't appear entirely correct either, but I still find it tenuous at best.

For a start, the insistence that "pull" is a demolition term is only partly correct. From what I've been able to find out, "shoot" is the term used for demolition-by-explosive, whereas "pull" refers to a technique of literally pulling the building over using cables. Its only suitable in certain situations, with buildings of up to maybe 7 or 8 stories.

The link is established by someone referring to building 6 also as being pulled, right? Here's the thing...I've looked long and hard to find information about how WTC was brought down in Decemeber 2001, and its pretty hard to find (so if someone has a good link, I'd appreciate it).

Now...are you ready for this...In December 2001, WTC was demolished without the use of explosives. It wsa literally pulled to the ground using cables....the technique referred to as "pulling".

So was Silverstein admitting that on 911, they tied cables to a 48-story burning building and pulled it off balance till it fell? I'm pretty certain he wasn't.

the list really does go on.

Yup. Unfortunately, that list has nothing to do with Loose Change. That list has to to with nothing but the conspiracy theories that the buildings were brought down deliberately using explosives.

DIdn't you say above that you wanted to discuss the LC video here, cause if the topic went to the CT forum you'd just have nutjobs preaching to the choir? Seems to be you're trying to bring the choir here now, given that we've left LC and gone on to "Oh, but look, here's another standard, often-debunked conspiracy-theory claim that will stump you" - and to be honest, I'm not interested in proving once more that its a badly-researched argument made out to be far stronger than it is, either through misdirection or omission.

if there was an independent investigation into not only what happened but how it happened, that wasn't censored, people would know the truth and wouldn't be worried that they were lied to again.

Sure they would. Except for those who'd argue that said comission was biased, or working to its own agenda, or, or or.

Look, I've said it before and I'll say it one last time - you do not just hand criminal investigations into the hands of the public because it would make someone feel happier. Its not done. Its never done.

if you were back in school,

Riiiiight. Cause school is as complex as the real world....

I'm a computer programmer. I debug and trouble-shoot as part of my job. Customers ask me in to fix problems, which I research, analyze, etc. Then I tell them what went wrong, as far as I can ascertain that, and fix things if possible.

Do I explain how I find things? No. In fact, sometimes I'll refuse to elaborate even if they ask. Do they rehire me? Yes, they do, because I produce results.

The real world doesn't always work on openness.

where does censorship stop?

With 28 pages of the report, from what I can see.

where do you draw the line, if you start drawing lines they get thicker and thicker, pretty soon nobody knows anything.

Thats rubbish. There is always a line. The question is where it is drawn.

Or are you suggesting that everyone who had a vested interest should have been allowed to carry out their own investigation? That no distinction should be made between people like your good self who insist that they want the truth, and some Jew-hating neo-nazi propagandists who'd want to carry out their own "independant" research and blame it all on the Jews?

Seriously...do you think that anyone who wants to should be allowed full access to all information in an investigation, resulting in as many "official" conclusions as there are crazy opinions today?????

it is unprecedented for information to be given out in situations that people want to cover up.

Its also unprecedented for information to be given out in massive criminal investigations....which this unquestionably was, whereas the suggestion that its a cover-up is still just a conclusion searching for an argument.

this is a subject that matters to all of the people who lost family that day, who's lives were torn apart that day,

Indeed. These are the same people, for example, who agreed that they did not want the black-boxes from flight 93 released to the public, because it would be traumatic for them and would prove nothing.

How is their request honoured?

Its honoured by poeple like the authors of LC bleating on about how this information is being kept from the public who want to know, and how it shows there's a cover-up.

why shouldn't we get this evidence/information?

people should be entitled to know the truth.

You've already decided what the truth is. You just want the details to fill in the gaps in that truth. And if the information was released to the public, all indications are tht you'd choose the ensuing version of the truth that best fit with what you have already decided.

Thats not the truth, and it serves no benefit.....and thats why you shouldn't get the evidence. Despite what you might like to think, allowing every Joe Q Sixpack access will not result in a unanimous decision on what happened. So what do you do? Decide in advance who is honest and who isn't? Allow the hate-spreaders to use this to spread their latest "<group we hate> is behind this" bull****? Or will you admit that a line has to be drawn, despite ranting on against such a notion in only your last post?

i don't believe in the bible but i like this quote because it is truthfull, and its worked for me my whole life
John 8:32

Given how critically you've shown your own analysis of LC and the evidence in general to have been, I think I can honestly say that the only "truth" you will ever hear on this subject is from someone who's saying what you already want to hear.

If hearing what you want to hear will set you free, but nothing else will, then you've a strange definition of what both the truth and freedom are.

The truth about Loose Change is that its an atrocious piece of film-making. Its intellectually dishonest in so many ways that the more I think about it the more repulsed by it I am. How anyone can put so little effort into objectively analyzing data on such a tragedy (or so much effort into biased analysis) and then claim to be searching for what really happened is just sickening to me.

Does that truth set you free?

jc

Zombrex

Catsmokinpot wrote:

hundreds of people.... hmmmm theres only 280 million people in the country, they couldnt find that many bad people could they?

Firstly, not without a long long search. People who are willing to kill hundreds of American civilians and risk tresion and execution just so the current Administration and Military can get a bit more support from the public, aren't exactly wandering about in the open.

Secondly, they would have had to have been planning this for decades (who ever "they" were) to get people loyal to the plan into the positions within the government agencies.

You can't just put hundreds of people into positions in the military, FAA, FEMA and other government agencies a few weeks before 9/11 and hope no one notices. Its a big deal in my work when one new person starts, I would imagine if 50 new faces suddenly showed up at the FAA crash investigators office and took a load of positions and no one knew who the hell they were someone would notice something fishy

Zombrex

Catsmokinpot wrote:

yes, if someone has nothing to hide why the secrecy?

Well firstly, anything to do with the security of the US State, or more importantly mistakes made in defending the security of the State will be wrapped in secrecy. That is just a given. No country in the world handles all its security matters completely out in the open.

Secondly, who says people don't have something to hide. As bonkey points out, just because someone has made a mistake, or is lying or covering something, doesn't mean any wild assumption is suddenly likely.

There is a difference between assuming someone is lying about something, and assuming to know what that something actually is.

Even if the US Adminstration is lying or covering up certain aspects of 9/11 we still don't have a clue what that is. But you can be pretty certain it isn't nonsense like "Loose Change" (for the reasons in the above post, and others)

Why do people always assume the wildest conspiricy stories? If my brother looks like he is lying about not being able to make it to the cinema, I assume it is something like he is blowing me off to go to the pub with his mates, not that he actually has to assinnate Bertie Ahern