Screw Loose Change: Another Member of the Conspiracy

Monday, May 22, 2006

Another Member of the Conspiracy

The CT member of Parliament whom we blogged on here has decided against screening Loose Change.

Subject: RE: LC screening
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:20:02 +0100
From: "MEACHER, Michael" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
To: "Brandon Muhs"

After consideration, Mr Meacher is not arranging for this film to be shown.

Regards

Monica Masson
PA
Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP
House of Commons

22 Comments:

At 22 May, 2006 08:58, Unknown said...: Justice and 9-11

Markyx, and anyone.

Given that that the only requirement to post on this blog is the ability to have an internet connection and the know-how to create a user id, it's not surprising the comments span the spectrum of the highly informed and intelligent to, as Jon Stewart would say, "informed and intelligent, not so much."

As I say this, I'm not trying to attack on smear anyone. I'm bringing this up to make a point.

Here's my point: Whether anything about Loose Change is accurate has consequences. There are enormous implications.

If one looks at the current path of politics and 9/11 right this moment, it is a 99% certainty that the official story is going to continue to be the foundation of debate and the foundation to Fed. Govt. policy going forward. So if anyone such as you thinks Loose Change is bunk, you are welcome to say so. However, it is a certainly that the 9/11 Commission and NIST, etc. have put things on a track to insure that your view will be the "truth" spoken going forward.

You've got every right to stand up for what you believe. Let's be real, though: it's not like any reasonable person thinks that Loose Change, alone, is going to overpower reason and somehow be used to make massive changes to our policies. What I'm saying is that you are safe with regard to your idea that Loose Change is a bunch of unsubstatiated charges, or worst. This seems to be no risk that Frist, (or anyone) is going to see this video and start to reform the Republican Platform including the Senate based on it.

What you are not safe from, however, is the truth. Independent of a "movie", if there is evidence that the govt. story of 9/11 is a lie, and enough people begin to suspect that, then Justice and Democracy have a chance.

What I am saying is that no one need fear Loose Change any more than Christians need fear "The Da Vinchi Code".

However, if there is something to the claims made in Loose Change related to the truth of the matter, that would be a difference story, now wouldn't it?

So, I ask you, why are you wasting your time fighting against a movie that either:

a) has no validity
b) helps get at the truth

The main thing that those of us who support questioning the 9/11 story want (as a first step) is the truth.

markyx, you say that people believing in something doesn't make it true. I agree.

However, if people don't even suspect something, there's no way they'll even investigate whether it's true.

Why don't you want them to have the basic knowledge to investigate for themselves?
At 22 May, 2006 09:29, Alex said...: BG, if you wanted "the truth" you wouldn't persist with your silly conspiracies. When I tell you massive quantities of thermite would be required for your idea to work, you wouldn't jump topics and start talking about oxygen starved fires. When it's pointed out that the fires were not oxygen starved, you wouldn't jump topics again and start talking about elevated tritium levels. In other words.... you wouldn't act so fucking RELIGIOUS about it. No ammount of evidence is going to convice you because you simply shift topics and start talking about something else. You have faith in you Conspiracy Theory and no ammount of evidence to the contrary is going to change your mind. So stop pretending ok?

As to why we want to debunk Loose Change? Because it's more damaging as a lie than it could ever be if it were true. If it were true, the men here working to debunk it would be the first ones charging up the steps of the white house to lynch those responsible. On the other hand, since we know it's mostly lies, we understand that it helps demonize the US government, and by association the US. It is propaganda pure and simple, propaganda meant to subvert our views and beleifs and turn us against everything the US government is attempting to accomplish. Your statement that we don't need to "fear Loose change" if we beleive it's false is the most nonsential thing you've said in a while. The Germans propaganda campaings against the Jewish people prior to WW2 were certainly false, and I think they proved quite effectively that such lies ARE to be feared.
At 22 May, 2006 10:11, nes718 said...: Just because people believe in something, doesn't mean it's true.

Look at Religion.

Exactly! That's all were saying. There is no such thing as "Al Qaeda."
At 22 May, 2006 10:15, nes718 said...: When I tell you massive quantities of thermite would be required for your idea to work, you wouldn't jump topics and start talking about oxygen starved fires.

The only molten pools of metal were found in the basements meaning only the foundations of the building were incinerated by thermite. It didn't take a lot as you're assuming. The job was to cut the supporting columns in the basement and the upper floor were bought down by cutter charges.
At 22 May, 2006 10:18, nes718 said...: As to why we want to debunk Loose Change? Because it's more damaging as a lie than it could ever be if it were true. If it were true, the men here working to debunk it would be the first ones charging up the steps of the white house to lynch those responsible.

Doubtful. Almost 3,000 of your brothers were sent to die for a lie and here you are trying to "debunk" a movie that shows the mechanism of those lies and you ignore and defend the criminals responsible.
At 22 May, 2006 10:24, James B. said...: The only molten pools of metal were found in the basements meaning only the foundations of the building were incinerated by thermite.

Then how did the building magically collapse from the top down, if only the foundation was cut?
At 22 May, 2006 10:25, Chad said...: The job was to cut the supporting columns in the basement and the upper floor were bought down by cutter charges.

Dude, you embarass retards. Do you honestly believe that if you cut the supports at the foundation of the towers, that the weight of 110 stories wouldn't bring it down?

You have no concept of reality if you do.

If the foundation support was eliminated, the buildings would've collapsed from the bottom up, not from the top down.

And not to re-hash your "free fall" theory, but you do realize that in order for the entire building to be in free fall, EVERY SINGLE floor would've need to be blown so as not to slow down the other floors. That's 220 floors fitted with explosives. In two weeks. That's almost 16 floors per day. Whereas most controlled demolitions take 4 months to rig a 30 story building.
At 22 May, 2006 11:03, FatOllie said...: Snickers Bar wrote:

"The only molten pools of metal were found in the basements meaning only the foundations of the building were incinerated by thermite. It didn't take a lot as you're assuming. The job was to cut the supporting columns in the basement and the upper floor were bought down by cutter charges."

This small amount of thermite that was necessary -- how much is that? Where was the thermite placed -- i.e. what columns were cut by the thermite? You need not be exact in your explanation, just describe a possible scenario for charge placement that would give the results that you claim. You do need, however, to explain how the perpetrators were able to place the charges at the desired locations and have them be undetected.

I'm really struggling with this last question: all the structural members that were going to be "incinerated" have to be sufficiently exposed so that the couple folks (out of the fifty total that you have claimed participated in the entire operation) who are placing the charges can easily get at them. They don't have the time to remove any non-structural items (in order to get to the steel structure which probably was not exposed) and if they had, the fact that a lot of non-stuctural building components had been tampered with would be obvious probably even to Doc Watson. So, how come nobody noticed any of this? If the structural steel in the basement was not concealed, how come the charges weren't discovered? Were the charges disguised, perhaps as toasted cheese sandwiches? And how come nobody noticed the sudden increase in the number of abandoned toasted cheese sandwiches?

Same questions apply to the "cutter charges" that you claim were set on the upper floors. Where were they placed and how did the demolition crew get to all those places? It's my assumption that every linear foot of outer wall space in that building would be occupied office space. If you came into your office one morning and found a big hole in the wall exposing the structural steel beneath, wouldn't you be the least bit curious how that happened? Unless, of course, you were among the fifty participants.

I'm sure you get the idea -- if you expect any rational person to believe what you claim, you (or Steven Jones, for example) have to come up with a plausible explanation of how it was done. I haven't seen one.
At 22 May, 2006 11:26, FatOllie said...: Chad wrote:

"And not to re-hash your "free fall" theory, but you do realize that in order for the entire building to be in free fall, EVERY SINGLE floor would've need to be blown so as not to slow down the other floors. That's 220 floors fitted with explosives. In two weeks. That's almost 16 floors per day. Whereas most controlled demolitions take 4 months to rig a 30 story building."

I also have a problem with this part of the CT narrative (as well as all the other parts). The CT people claim that the only way to get a building to fall as fast as the towers fell is to do it with controlled demolition. As Steven Jones (who has scientifically documented Christ's appearance in South America shortly after the crucifixion) explains -- in order to get the building to fall that quickly, you have to remove all the resistance presented by all the structural elements in the entire building. That's the only way to get the building to fall as quickly as buildings fall in controlled demolitions.

But, that's not the way they do controlled demolitions, as far as I understand. What they do is place charges in the lower portion of the building which will remove critical, carefully selected structural elements. Gravity does the rest.

To repeat the contradiction: CTers claim that the only way to get a building to fall as fast as it would in a controlled demolition is to remove the resistance offered by intervening floors; but that _is not_ how controlled demolitions are done. Therefore, buildings which collapse as a result of controlled demolition can't collapse as fast as buildings which collapse as a result of controlled demolition.
At 22 May, 2006 11:31, Chad said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 22 May, 2006 12:35, nes718 said...: THERMITE REMOVING THE VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY OF THE STEEL AT THE BOTTOM LAST:

Below the detonation system of the lower core, diffferent from that of the upper core, was a gas system for safety as described in the SETTING DETONATORS section below. The different system was slower and the thermite removed the bearing ability columns at the base of them as the floors detonated at 75 millisecond delays downwards. If only the floors are detonated while the thermite at the base of the perimeter box columns and interior box columns is initiated, the steel will drop as a ring around the core, centralized, limiting collateral damage.

Thermite was placed against steel faces in the first floor and basement of the towers that created the large quantity of molten metal in the basements. In the most practical sense, thermite is the ONLY way to possibly create that much heat, that fast under those conditions.

After the van blew up in the basement of the WTC tower in 1993, (It is a known fact that government agents knew and allowed this to happen, see the trial of the terrorist charged) it and the first floor were remodeled and thermite was added in the quantities as calculated below minus the concrete core structure quantities covering a single face of the vertical structural steel.
At 22 May, 2006 12:58, nes718 said...: i have to give it to NESNYC. He has quite an active imagination...

So do the criminals and is why they go over on you guys.
At 22 May, 2006 17:33, Alex said...: Just amazing. You know, if a few weeks ago one of you had told me that people like him exist, I would have called you insane. It's too bad we can't stick him in a lab to see what makes him tick.
At 22 May, 2006 17:38, shawn said...: Eventually, we're going to see polls, just like the polls on the Kennedy assassination. This one puts the number not buying the official story at 66% but I've seen polls over 80%.

And all the evidence points to Oswald being the only shooter. The only reason so many Americans poll that way is Stone's film JFK, which contained at a minimum 100 errors of fact.

You know, if a few weeks ago one of you had told me that people like him exist, I would have called you insane.

I feel the exact same way. I have friends who think the government purposely allowed it to happen, but this guy goes above and beyond. He blames the Allies for World War II. Acts as if the Nazis were victims. Is antisemitic at every possible turn, blaming the Jews for every catastrophe.
At 22 May, 2006 17:54, Chad said...: The only reason so many Americans poll that way is Stone's film JFK, which contained at a minimum 100 errors of fact.

Which is exactly the reason I get sick to my stomach when I think what he's probably done with World Trade Center.
At 22 May, 2006 20:27, Chad said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 22 May, 2006 20:28, Chad said...: Far better to trust Hollywood movies, or what you find on INTERNET, or what your best friend's, cousin's, talking monkey's pet parrot told you.

I'll question anything that I feel deserves questioning. I wasn't around for Kennedy's assasination, but what I've seen and read on the topic has yet to convince me of any conspiracy.

I buy it because it makes sense.

That's the thing with you crazies. You either:
A.) Understand it, but don't trust it (which is called paranoia), or..
B.) Are too dumb to get it in the first place (which is called being dumb).
At 22 May, 2006 21:29, shawn said...: I cannot believe that anyone still believes the magic bullet lone gunman theory regarding JFK.

Single, not magic.

A lot of the conspiracy thought comes from one drawing in one book. The author misplaced the two men, making it seem as if the bullet had to turn in midair to hit them both. Hell, they've recreated the shot exactly. EXACTLY.

The bottom line is that some people will believe absolutely anything they are told by their leaders, and defend it to their last breath.

I believed the conspiracy theory longer (about a decade) than I haven't (five-six years). Idiot.

Lee Harvey Oswald did it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

His fingerprints on the gun (you'll say they were planted). Picture with him with the gun (don't say the picture was faked, that claim was debunked). Spotted in the cafeteria 90 seconds after the shots. A shot from any other angle is absolutely, positively physically impossible.

Carry on, I'm done with you silly clowns.

hahahah man, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
At 22 May, 2006 21:37, shawn said...: Here's a picture that has the wrong alignment

How the bullet actually went through Kennedy's neck (autopsy photos)

Quite the 'magic bullet'

Yeah, real magical
At 22 May, 2006 21:38, shawn said...: Owned.

Thank you, thank you.
At 23 May, 2006 07:12, shawn said...: And no 19 hijackers could have done that.

They didn't have to infiltrate any security systems! 9/11 was an example of a gross lack of imagination on the part of our security, not an infiltration of the system. Planes have been hijacked before (even in American, hun), so what makes these ones so special?
At 14 January, 2007 21:37, Anonymous said...: The first plane from 9/11 was a shell... gutted, with a matching serial # from a stolen plane in the 80's... there were only 3 hijackers on that plane, and only those persons died... they had gutted the plane only to fill it with explosives, which, if you watch any video from that horrid day, there is an explosion from the plane before it hits...

Monday, May 22, 2006

Another Member of the Conspiracy

22 Comments:

Contributors

Previous Posts

Allies: