Friday, June 09, 2006

Google Notes Loose Change Searches

This video is a couple weeks old obviously, since it references the release of the Pentagon tapes, but it also prominently mentions Loose Change.

55 Comments:

At 09 June, 2006 15:57, Blogger BG said...

Important Concepts to Consider
radiant energy

The Only Filing Cabinet Found

Vignettes: They were there
"We told people, `We would like to get a crushed desk or chair or computer terminal,' and they said, `You don't get it,' " she said. "Everything was shattered or melted or vaporized. Tons and tons of paper from the offices, and business cards and photographs survived, but there was almost no glass left. All of those windows, and no glass."

 
At 09 June, 2006 16:05, Blogger shawn said...

Zarqawi lived long enough to see who had taken him out

 
At 09 June, 2006 16:08, Blogger shawn said...

bg, I looked through the site that hosts the second link. Hilarious stuff.

"FIREBALL ON WRONG SIDE OF THE BUILDING"

No, no it's not. Burning fuel travels, it doesn't just sit there.

 
At 09 June, 2006 19:05, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

It just happens the the filing cabinet pic and video are on the webfairy.com web site. My link points to untainted evidence and stands without respect to where it is hosted.

The webfairy site is priceless overall. Unfortunately, the other evidence is often difficult to grasp. If anyone can't comprehend what the filing cabinet points toward, it's not surprising that there would be scoffs at the other shocking (and true) web pages.

 
At 09 June, 2006 19:25, Blogger Alex said...

Ok, since we're all so stupid your highness, wouldst thou dain to descend from thy lofty perch and grace us with thy interpretation of "the truth" as represented by this picture of a mangled piece of metalic wreckage?

Maybe I'm a little slow, but I fail to see how the remnants of a filing cabinet show that there were explosive charges in the WTC. Unless you're suggesting that all the filing cabinets were composed of C4.

 
At 09 June, 2006 19:36, Blogger shawn said...

It just happens the the filing cabinet pic and video

Which prove nothing. What does mangled metal with a bit of paper surviving prove?

The webfairy site is priceless overall.

I got a pretty good laugh from it. Priceless? Maybe.

If anyone can't comprehend what the filing cabinet points toward, it's not surprising that there would be scoffs at the other shocking (and true) web pages.


Err I went through the site, his interpretation of nearly every picture or video is completely off-base.

 
At 09 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger BG said...

Morgan Reynolds Presentation at University of Wisconsin - Video Download

 
At 09 June, 2006 20:22, Blogger Alex said...

Oh screw off with the goddamn video downloads. If you want to make a point, phrase it in your own words, provide some short quotes, and THEN link to supporting evidence. Posting a link to an hour long video as your entire response practicaly gaurantees that nobody will follow the link, and everyone will assume you're full of shit.

 
At 09 June, 2006 20:33, Blogger Falco98 said...

Morgan Reynolds Presentation at University of Wisconsin - Video Download

Is that the same Morgan Reynolds as was mentioned here?

 
At 09 June, 2006 20:48, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 09 June, 2006 20:58, Blogger ScottSl said...

I don't get the Cabinet from the Ice Cream shot either.
It came from a Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream shop that was on the plaza. So what? Its seems like they think it was planted because of the paper inside. LOL!!!!!!

Here you can see them opening it up and finding paper inside...so what??

http://americanhistory.si.edu/September11/collection/search_record.asp?search=1&location=1&mode=&record=18

This must be another one of those wierd flat-earth science posts where CT'er think that every piece of paper should of burned up.

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:22, Blogger BG said...

One web page that attempts to identify what would have cause a "shriveled" filing cabinet:

View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:26, Blogger MarkyX said...

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:45, Blogger Alex said...

Sorry BG, can't access that website though the military firewall.

I'm just surprised that you'd take that "military expert's" word over the word of myself, LT, and James, all of whom are "military experts" as well :)

Ok, no, I'm not really surprised. I know that you only quote experts who agree with you. The fact that there might be one army guy who agrees with you for every 1,000 who don't is nowhere near enough to sway your faith in "the truth".

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:47, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:48, Blogger ScottSl said...

"One web page that attempts to identify what would have cause a "shriveled" filing cabinet"

You think heat and the pressure of the falling towers wouldn't do it???

BTW Just taking the first paragraph on the Madrid towers,... the steel part of the towers collapsed but the concrete stayed up. Very different tower. Fires from the Twin Towers in testing reached 1100C. Hydrocarbon fires CAN reach over 1100C in 40 min. Also I don't see any steel turning into dust.

But the site did have a photo I didn't have. Cool

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:53, Blogger default.xbe said...

ok, so that guy says it was a small hydrogen bomb that blew up the towers (wow, is all i really have to say to that)

now, on thing though, im no anonymous finnish military expert, but arent hydrogen bombs much much larger than uranium bombs? if they wanted a small nuclear boom wouldnt a fission warhead have been better?

 
At 09 June, 2006 21:58, Blogger ScottSl said...

Im shocked MIT (Jeff King) plaguepuppy isn't here claiming that it was his death ray yet.

 
At 09 June, 2006 22:12, Blogger shawn said...

now, on thing though, im no anonymous finnish military expert, but arent hydrogen bombs much much larger than uranium bombs? if they wanted a small nuclear boom wouldnt a fission warhead have been better?

Yes to both questions. But do you really think those folks think that far?

 
At 09 June, 2006 23:30, Blogger default.xbe said...

Yes to both questions. But do you really think those folks think that far?

eh, just pick your favorite truth and go with it, isnt that how everyone conducts investigations? LOL

 
At 10 June, 2006 07:03, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

as I stated on another thread, I would LOVE to see you go to court with this "evidence" of yours.

filing cabinet = controlled demolision.

Brilliant!

 
At 10 June, 2006 14:29, Blogger shawn said...

hahaha on the Zarqawi page on wikipedia I'm now arguing with someone who says the Z-man was a psyop invention of the Americans. Seems everywhere I go I see people spouting unsupported nonsense.

 
At 10 June, 2006 14:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

I go I see people spouting unsupported nonsense.

Ah... So you really "think" the government would leave evidence to support this "nonsense?" You just got an F- in common sense.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:00, Blogger shawn said...

Ah... So you really "think" the government would leave evidence to support this "nonsense?" You just got an F- in common sense.

Well you can't get an F minus, so nice try.

But you've failed common sense. The two choices are Z-man was actually a terrorist leader or a creation. The first makes more sense, ergo you have failed the common sense test.

As Osama (someone you idiotically think is a CIA agent) himself said, Z-man was the "prince" of al-Qaeda in Iraq and that the insurgents over there should follow him.

With that, not only does common sense side with Z-man being his own man, but the evidence also supports it.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:01, Blogger shawn said...

Nesnyc, you ever gonna challenge us? Your ridiculous statements lend me to think you're a disinformation agent, they're just so easy to knock down.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:01, Blogger nesNYC said...

Ah ha ha ha ha...

So I guess I was right in that he would be toast if he was ideed in the "safehouse."

Caldwell said it was possible that al-Zarqawi was not inside the safehouse when it was attacked, a scenario which might explain why only he among six people killed in the raid initially survived the bombing.

Now that's a twist. I wonder how many times this story is going to change to make it "fit" that the bombs left him relatively undamaged.

Guys, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU! I mean, come on. You're all very intelligent people, how do they manage to keep getting over on you and you still keep turning a blind patriotic eye?

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

As Osama (someone you idiotically think is a CIA agent) himself said, Z-man was the "prince" of al-Qaeda in Iraq and that the insurgents over there should follow him.

Anything the dead Osama says should be highly questionable, no? LMAO :D

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:15, Blogger shawn said...

Now that's a twist. I wonder how many times this story is going to change to make it "fit" that the bombs left him relatively undamaged.

...we've already explained to you how explosives work. Stop ignoring it, dumbass. Do you follow Israel suicide bombings at all? Often the people don't look hurt, but their insides are mush. Mostly likely what happened to the Z-man.

Guys, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU! I mean, come on.

When you actually have evidence of this, bring it on.

You're all very intelligent people, how do they manage to keep getting over on you and you still keep turning a blind patriotic eye?


Because we're intelligent people we don't buy into your nonsense. It has nothing to do with being patriotic/American/Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/etc. It has to do with where the facts lay, and they don't lay with you.

Anything the dead Osama says should be highly questionable, no? LMAO :D

You ever check dates, idiot? We know Osama was alive past 2002.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:15, Blogger shawn said...

Again and again, you throw 'em and I hit them out of the park

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:25, Blogger Alex said...

"Do you follow Israel suicide bombings at all? Often the people don't look hurt, but their insides are mush."

But EVERYONE knows those are faked by zionists and the zionist-controlled media. Those people don't look hurt because they're not really dead. Or because they were poisoned and brought to the scene of the bombing after the bomb went off. Or because it wasn't really a bomb, but a super-secret CIA gravity-laser-satelite. Or maybe a cruise missile. With a gass warhead. Hey, we're just asking questions man!

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:27, Blogger nesNYC said...

You ever check dates, idiot? We know Osama was alive past 2002.

Unsubstantiated. Who told you this? Was it an "official" governmental source? Why would they claim otherwise? F-

Again and again, you throw 'em and I hit them out of the park
This is a game you're playing in your own mind. I'm generating serious facts and none of your opinions can do anything to detract from that. You simply feel you are "winning" an argument via purely your observation and then patting yourself on the back for it.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:32, Blogger shawn said...

Unsubstantiated. Who told you this? Was it an "official" governmental source? Why would they claim otherwise? F-

There is no F minus! F is the lowest possible grade.

It's not unsubstantiated, dumbass. We have video and audio tapes. you lose again.


I'm generating serious facts and none of your opinions can do anything to detract from that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You got that completely backwards, bud.


You simply feel you are "winning" an argument via purely your observation and then patting yourself on the back for it.


No, I actually am winning the argument. absolutely no question. Every one of your "facts" is either an opinion that obviously wasn't correct (the FBI official link), or just unsubstantiated.

Your problem is you want to argue from all sides. First Osama is a CIA agent, so al-Qaeda is fake. Then Osama is actually the leader of al-Qaeda and Zarqawi wasn't part of al-Qaeda and HE was a fake enemy. You can't have it all these different ways, you at least need an internal logic to your idiotic conspiracy theories.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

It's not unsubstantiated, dumbass. We have video and audio tapes. you lose again.

Question, in this day and age, can videos, audio tapes and photos be falsified? YES!

So you're basing your whole premise on video and audio tapes that could be faked? Would that pass the smell test in a court of law? F-

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:49, Blogger Alex said...

The question isn't CAN they be faked, the questions is doy uhave any evidence to support theidea that they WERE faked.

According to science ANYTHING is possible. There's a possibility, no matter how small, that the entire planet will wink out of existance tomorrow. There's a possibility that gravity will fail and we'll all go flying off into space. But there's no evidenece to suggest that any of those things are likely to happen. The eqivalent there to this argument would go something like this:

Us: We have thousands of years of history, plus thousands of scientific studies, to support the idea that gravity will continue to work as it always has.

You: Ah, but IT'S POSSIBLE that it'll fail tomorrow! Therefore you're all brainwashed, and I rock!

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:54, Blogger shawn said...

So you're basing your whole premise on video and audio tapes that could be faked? Would that pass the smell test in a court of law? F-

...those audio tapes and videos would pass as evidence in a court of law.

Again, F is the lowest grade possible. The more you post, the younger you seem.

Oh, and Alex completely demolished you.

 
At 10 June, 2006 15:54, Blogger shawn said...

"You're basing your premise on video of the guy and audio tapes of him speaking? Psh, next you'll expect me to think taped confessions are viable evidence in a trial!" - nesnyc

 
At 10 June, 2006 16:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

Oh, and Alex completely demolished you.

You guys accumse me of circular logic and then commence to use it? I guess that would make sense in your world; not in mine.

Anways:

doy uhave any evidence to support theidea that they WERE faked.

I doy uhave evidence to support my "idea" and actually, it's not my idea at all:

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations [American?] to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

Do we really have to read this again?

 
At 10 June, 2006 16:45, Blogger nesNYC said...

...those audio tapes and videos would pass as evidence in a court of law.

Only with jurors and completely lost as you guys!

 
At 10 June, 2006 16:47, Blogger Alex said...

What the...

Ok, I'm completely going to ignore the fact that you can't seem to tell the difference between showing evidence for something being possible, and showing evidence for something actualy having happened.

Instead, I've got jus one question.

How the HELL was that "circular logic"? Please take me through the tortured thought proccess which lead you to the conclusion that my argument was somehow circular.

 
At 10 June, 2006 16:57, Blogger shawn said...

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations [American?] to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

That's not evidence the tapes of bin Laden were faked! Are you really that stupid?

 
At 10 June, 2006 16:58, Blogger shawn said...

Only with jurors and completely lost as you guys!

By your logic taped confessions shouldn't be admissible in court (when they're pretty much the best evidence you can have).

 
At 10 June, 2006 17:08, Blogger nesNYC said...

That's not evidence the tapes of bin Laden were faked! Are you really that stupid?

That's evidence that gravity won't fail tomorrow. But as for solid evidence the video are faked, I have to ask again, why would the criminals leave clues of their crimes? All you need to do is look past the dark lies of propaganda and see the light of truth smacking you in the face. It's really that easy.

The tapes and videos are all forgeries by US intelligence. They flaunted that article there to give you advance warning and then when on and did the deed. Look at that article again; it says they will lie to people to get their goals accomplished. That my friends is an admission of guilt.

 
At 10 June, 2006 17:11, Blogger shawn said...

I have to ask again, why would the criminals leave clues of their crimes?

They do it ALL THE TIME. Look up Leonard Lake.

 
At 10 June, 2006 17:12, Blogger shawn said...

The tapes and videos are all forgeries by US intelligence.

They're not forgeries until you can give actual proof.

 
At 10 June, 2006 17:18, Blogger Alex said...

"They flaunted that article there to give you advance warning and then when on and did the deed."

"I have to ask again, why would the criminals leave clues of their crimes?"

:p

Wow. I guess that answers the question of whether or not he can go for more than 5 minutes without contradicting himself.

So you claim that "the criminals" wouldn't leave evidence to implicate themselves. Then in practicaly the same breath, you claim that they used their zionist-controlled media to give us advance-warning of their plan, just for kicks.

You really are something else boy.

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

They're not forgeries until you can give actual proof.

The Earth is the center of the universe unless you can give actual proof.

- Catholic Church to Galileo

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:04, Blogger Alex said...

And, unlike you, he went and did exactly that.

Your ilk has been spreading the CT nonsense since the early 60's at the very least. Not even your early conspiracies have gained acceptance. Comparing yourself to Gallileo is an unjustifiable conceit.

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:07, Blogger nesNYC said...

So you claim that "the criminals" wouldn't leave evidence to implicate themselves. Then in practicaly the same breath, you claim that they used their zionist-controlled media to give us advance-warning of their plan, ***just for kicks***.

Exactly!!!!!! They are laughing in your faces. Because the above article isn't really proof they faked the Osama video but only that they have the capacity to do so. Clearly, the videos are fakes, the audio tapes are fakes.

9/11 attack was staged. 911 is emergency response in the US; laughing in YOUR faces. That's what they do because they can get away because of your collective gullibility. The know you trust them and because of this go on the commit the most treasonous acts because people like you refuse to put 2 + 2 together.

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:14, Blogger ScottSl said...

Want to see something funny?

Loose Change mods tried to wipe away the thread, but someone took a screen shot and reposted it.

Seems most of the CT'ers at the Loose Change forum can't figure out what what on the Bin Laden Video anymore.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4633&st=90

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:27, Blogger Alex said...

Imagine that. The government isn't just evil, they have a messed up sense of humour too. Good god. What will they do next?

It sure is a good thing we have someone like you to put 2+2 together for us! Otherwise I would have kept thinking it comes out to 4. Thanks! Now that you've succeeded in convincing us, feel free to mosey on to some other website and spread your trouth there.

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:52, Blogger shawn said...

The Earth is the center of the universe unless you can give actual proof.

Wow, that's so illogical it's not funny.

If I had said "prove they're not forgeries" (which is what you would say), then your post would make sense.

 
At 10 June, 2006 18:54, Blogger shawn said...

They are laughing in your faces. Because the above article isn't really proof they faked the Osama video but only that they have the capacity to do so.

It isn't proof at all, not isn't "really" proof.

Clearly, the videos are fakes, the audio tapes are fakes.


How you come to that conclusion without any evidence is surprising.

Blind faith, much?

 
At 10 June, 2006 19:39, Blogger MarkyX said...

Existence of Technology is not evidence..

Fucking idiots

 
At 11 June, 2006 07:03, Blogger CHF said...

nesnyc,

Someone who thinks the WTC towers were built with explosives has no business lecturing others on their logic or evidence.

You CTs have nothing that would stand up in a court room. NOTHING.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home