Saturday, June 24, 2006

An Open Letter to Dylan Avery

This terrific letter came to me via email today from Jasa Slavjansky:

Hello,

I am now familiar with your film "Loose Change", as well as the critique of the film by Mark Roberts. Recently, I saw what appeared to be a screenshot of a "personal profile" for yourself akin to something on either a blog, myspace page, or some other similar account owned by you. In this screenshot, it shows a quote, allegedly from you, that "Mark Roberts is CIA".

Now, assuming that you did write those words, I think this might be a valuable lesson for you: Have you ever wondered why some people call you a conspiracy nut, kook, or other derogatory terms of this nature? Well it might have a little something to do with the fact that you(assuming you did make such a claim) feel compelled to label anyone who disagrees with your theory as a part of the conspiracy itself. And you wonder why people refer to these things as conspiracies?

I read Mr. Roberts critique, and the ease with which many of your film's claims are debunked, particularly the ease by which the actual facts are found(via Google in many cases) is shocking. Basically, based on the amount of factual errors in this film, we can only come to two conclusions:

1. The "researchers"(including yourself), as in most conspiracy theories, started with a preconceived conclusion, and then purposely cherry-picked any story that seemed to support this conclusion while ignoring everything that doesn't. In other words, at a great deal of deliberate deception was involved(something like the Bush case for war in Iraq).

2. Complete incompetence. And while we're on that note, please deny that one of your colleague's on a radio show claimed that the damage to the Pentagon could have been done with a Javelin missile. Seriously, I DEMAND an apology for that remark that is idiotic beyond all mortal comprehension, seeing that the Javelin is an ANTI-TANK missile with a HEAT warhead- something that tends to leave a hole no bigger than a PENCIL. Here is a link that will explain both these concepts to you and your colleagues:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_effect

But I digress...

The point is, conspiracy believers have no right to complain about this label when they constantly label anyone who questions them as an agent of the CIA, Mossad, Illuminati, or simply paid-disinformation operative. For my questioning(simply questioning) of the 9-11 controlled demolitions theories, I have been over the past year or so been accused of being:

1. A CIA agent.
2. A Jew(by self-proclaimed "white nationalists")
3. A Neocon(I am actually more or less a socialist who actually left the United States to live in Europe)
4. A paid agent of Larry Silverstein.

Everybody that contradicts or fails to support the conspiracy is accused of being part of the conspiracy. Does that sound even remotely rational to you? If so it would explain a lot. My advice, next film you release should have the support of a credible demolitions-expert or structural engineer. Otherwise don't bother.

JPS

93 Comments:

At 24 June, 2006 08:14, Blogger Falco98 said...

while you're cataloguing the labels they like to give people, don't forget to mention "brainwashed republican sheep"... i like that one.

 
At 24 June, 2006 08:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

particularly the ease by which the actual facts are found(via Google in many cases) is shocking.

The official fiction is easily found everywhere, google is no exception. This is the type of stuff "debunkers" always resort to when trying to prove folks that say otherwise wrong.

As for the rest of her tirade, she's currently leaving the area of denial and trying to actively fight the truth. We all know the next phase is acceptance. She'll come along eventually.

 
At 24 June, 2006 09:13, Blogger shawn said...

The official fiction is easily found everywhere

There is no official fiction. Unless they reversed the defintions of fiction and fact when I wasn't looking.

This is the type of stuff "debunkers" always resort to when trying to prove folks that say otherwise wrong.

Scare quotes, the last bastion of the ruined.

We all know the next phase is acceptance.

We're in big trouble if everyone disregards logic and evidence and sides with you.

 
At 24 June, 2006 09:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

There is no official fiction. Unless they reversed the defintions of fiction and fact when I wasn't looking.

Bin Laden and 19 hijackers is provable fiction. It is the propaganda story pushed by the media and government so that makes it "Official Fiction."

 
At 24 June, 2006 10:35, Blogger jackhanyes said...

...started with a preconceived conclusion and then purposely cherry-picked any story that seemed to support this conclusion while ignoring everything that doesn't.

I think she it getting "conclusion" confused with hypothesis.

Take the tower...

Step 1: Why did the tower fell?
Step 2: Looks like a CD.
Step 3: Maybe they were CD?
Step 4: This flim looks like molten metal.. and this beam look like it was cut.
Step 5: Thermit burns like that.
Step 6: Looks like the tower was CD with thermite.
Step 7: I think the tower was CD with thermite.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

Bin Laden and 19 hijackers is provable fiction.

im still waiting for your proof on this

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:15, Blogger undense said...

Bin Laden and 19 hijackers is provable fiction. It is the propaganda story pushed by the media and government so that makes it "Official Fiction."

"Provable fiction?"

You impart an entirely new meaning to the word oxyMORON.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:30, Blogger nesNYC said...

im still waiting for your proof on this

There is no "proof" these guys even boarded the planes. If there is such "proof" then why hasn't the FBI released the airport videos? Innocent until proven guilty.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

"Provable fiction?"

You impart an entirely new meaning to the word oxyMORON.


Correct! It's exactly like a "jihadist" going to a strip bar, bwa ha ha ha.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:34, Blogger default.xbe said...

boading manifests show the hijackers on each plane, seems like proof to me

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

boading manifests show the hijackers on each plane, seems like proof to me

The security boarding check point videos would be a bit more convincing don't you think?

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:41, Blogger James B. said...

It's exactly like a "jihadist" going to a strip bar, bwa ha ha ha.

Men want to see naked women? Gasp! Stop the presses!

If you had ever left your parents basement you would discover that this is quite common, even among so called devout Muslims.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:45, Blogger MarkyX said...


Correct! It's exactly like a "jihadist" going to a strip bar, bwa ha ha ha.


You never talked with a Muslim before. Almost every muslim male in my age talks about getting laid or flirting at night clubs.

Freaking racist.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:48, Blogger jackhanyes said...

We're in big trouble if everyone disregards logic and evidence and sides with you.

Your logic rules out events you can't accept or in your mind unlikely, or "my government wouldn't do that".

Your evidence comes from a limited set of data "released" by the FBI and eyewitness at the screen that support the OS selectively used to write the FEMA reports, the NIST reports, and the Kean comission.

You over look many other evidence simply on the fact the weren't accepted by the government on hte basis that the do not support the OS.

You viciously attack and mock people who point out this evidence.

Dear sir, mesync is right, this lady went from denial to attacking.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:52, Blogger nesNYC said...

Men want to see naked women? Gasp! Stop the presses!

If you had ever left your parents basement you would discover that this is quite common, even among so called devout Muslims.


No,no. That's not the "official" line. These guys were fanatical enough to take their lives for their cause, in fact, look at the Taliban's treatment of women to see how real fundamentalists feel towards the opposite sex.

So if Atta and crew went to strip clubs, did coke and had girlfriends, then they really weren't fantastical enough to take their lives in this "operation" now were they?

The government gave you an oxymoron as "proof" and you guys ate it. I actually feel sorry for you.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:53, Blogger default.xbe said...

The security boarding check point videos would be a bit more convincing don't you think?

youve got a boner for videos, dont you?

but when they contradict your opinion (eg. bin laden confession) they must be faked, right?

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:53, Blogger James B. said...

Your evidence comes from a limited set of data "released" by the FBI and eyewitness at the screen that support the OS selectively

Once again, please point out the lies, distortions, quote mining, and false experts that this site is relying on. I can point out dozens of cases where CTs do that, and all you do is complain that I don't rely on every nutty source you come up with.

Sorry, I don't consider the neo-nazi American Free Press to be a credible source, or a retired theology professor to be an expert on structural engineering. You are just going to have to accept that.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:55, Blogger James B. said...

That's not the "official" line. These guys were fanatical enough to take their lives for their cause, in fact, look at the Taliban's treatment of women to see how real fundamentalists feel towards the opposite sex.


These guys weren't Taliban, and most had lived in the West extensively.

I am saying this based off of the experience of living in two different Muslim countries. How many have you lived in?

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:58, Blogger shawn said...

So if Atta and crew went to strip clubs, did coke and had girlfriends, then they really weren't fantastical enough to take their lives in this "operation" now were they?

Look up Ramzi Yousef, dumbass.

The Koran has allowances for breaking the rules as long as you're using it in the fight against unbelievers. Read it sometime.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

These guys weren't Taliban, and most had lived in the West extensively.

I am saying this based off of the experience of living in two different Muslim countries. How many have you lived in?


Irrelevant, how many suicide hijackers have you met before? What about suicide bombers? What about fantastical Islamists? Plain everyday folks don’t count.

But you are right about one thing here, Atta and company did live in the west extensively, heck, they even trained on US bases. That's all provable facts you choose not to see.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:02, Blogger shawn said...

Your logic rules out events you can't accept or in your mind unlikely, or "my government wouldn't do that".

You don't even understand basic logical fallacies so where do you get off saying anything to me? I've never ONCE said "the conspiracy theories are bunk because the government wouldn't do that" (excellent strawman though).

Your evidence comes from a limited set of data "released" by the FBI and eyewitness at the screen that support the OS selectively used to write the FEMA reports, the NIST reports, and the Kean comission.


Watch out, you're poisoning the well now. "It must be faked/wrong if the government says so even though I have no evidence for it being faked/wrong, just trust me".

You over look many other evidence simply on the fact the weren't accepted by the government on hte basis that the do not support the OS.

Boy do you love strawmen. I don't accept the evidence because it isn't evidence, not because it "goes against" the official story. It's like the nonsense that creationists try to pull, where evolutionists ignore the creationists' evidence (I use the term loosely here).

You viciously attack and mock people who point out this evidence.

When people continue to parrot points debunked countless times, I will call you morons, idiots, retarded, and every other term that rightly defines you.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

The Koran has allowances for breaking the rules as long as you're using it in the fight against unbelievers. Read it sometime.

So why did Atta snort coke? Did that help in anyway to "fight against unbelievers?" How exactly do you figure that "helped?" Hahahahahahaha. I can't actually believe you believe in that Zionist propaganda so dearly.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:05, Blogger nesNYC said...

You don't even understand basic logical fallacies

As I pointed out before, that's all you ever see becase you want to.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:07, Blogger nesNYC said...

Watch out, you're poisoning the well now. "It must be faked/wrong if the government says so even though I have no evidence for it being faked/wrong, just trust me".

Wrong. There are plenty of facts exposing the government lies beyond "trust." You just choose not to take them as such and simply quote more government lies to try and detract from the plainly evident facts.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:08, Blogger James B. said...

But you are right about one thing here, Atta and company did live in the west extensively, heck, they even trained on US bases. That's all provable facts you choose not to see.


Oh yeah, I read one guy even attended DLI. I guess he was studying Chinese or something.

I wish you guys could keep your stories straight. In one argument you claim they are trained CIA spooks, and then the next moment you will claim that they are patsies who are proclaiming their innocence to the BBC. Which is it?

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:09, Blogger CHF said...

jack,

care to explain why the CDs on 9/11 didn't make any loud bangs that echoed around NYC as is the case in real CDs?

care to explain when/now these charges were set up?

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:13, Blogger nesNYC said...

care to explain why the CDs on 9/11 didn't make any loud bangs that echoed around NYC as is the case in real CDs?

Wrong. Look here for that.

Also, according to eyewitness accounts released by NYT, many heard cracking, popping and saw flashes under the demolition waves as the buildings fell. That's all documented.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

I wish you guys could keep your stories straight. In one argument you claim they are trained CIA spooks, and then the next moment you will claim that they are patsies who are proclaiming their innocence to the BBC. Which is it?

Well, don't get lost here. It's quite simply, really. Osama and the entire "Terror Network" also known as "Al Qaeda" was/is simply a drug smuggling operation out of Afghanistan. Atta and company were in the business of transporting drugs to the CIA backed Florida "Flight Schools." I was a very simple thing to make them appear to be the hijackers because of their extensive need to travel and the concealment of their "classified" activities.

Atta and company were guilty of drug running, but not much else. The CIA and Mossad were the actual masterminds of 9/11 and had Atta and company as the convenient fall guys.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:21, Blogger CHF said...

nesnyc,

have you ever seen a CD in your life?

After a CD there isn't a few people who say they heard "pops".

EVERYONE WITHIN A MILE HEARS THE BANGS!

You need a lot of power to cut steel beems.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: get yourselves some structural engineers and CD experts.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:23, Blogger nesNYC said...

So to reiterate, if Atta and the 19 weren’t suicide hijackers than who pulled off 9/11? The entire official story falls to pieces under the light of scrutiny and you guys can try and make all the excuse you want, but the fact a plainly evident.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:27, Blogger nesNYC said...

nesnyc,

have you ever seen a CD in your life?

After a CD there isn't a few people who say they heard "pops".

EVERYONE WITHIN A MILE HEARS THE BANGS!

You need a lot of power to cut steel beems.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: get yourselves some structural engineers and CD experts.


The 911eyewitness video was filmed across the river and documents at least 9 separate major explosions as the towers collapsed. These weren't the sounds of the floors crashing into one another; there were explosions that sounded like thunder. Now that fits with your CD scenario doesn't it?

Also, like I pointed out, many saw the flashes of the cutter charges going off. Stop denying the facts.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:29, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, OK. I usually hire Egyptian engineers living in Hamburg to smuggle my Afghan opium. Makes perfect sense to me...

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:38, Blogger shawn said...

So why did Atta snort coke? Did that help in anyway to "fight against unbelievers?" How exactly do you figure that "helped?" Hahahahahahaha. I can't actually believe you believe in that Zionist propaganda so dearly.

They are supposed to completely immerse themselves in the enemy society. It isn't "zionist propaganda" you disgusting anti-semite, it's in the GODDAMN KORAN. You've never read the book so stop arguing from ignorance. It says you can lie, cheat, and steal as long as it furthers the cause of Islam and is against infidels.

As I pointed out before, that's all you ever see becase you want to.

I see them because they're there, dumbass. I don't just invent them, you're using friggin' logical fallacies. You don't even try to show how they aren't logical fallacies. You just go "nope, they're not". How childish.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:39, Blogger Alex said...

There was nothing controlled about that demolition. In controlled demolitions you don't get fragments of the building damaging other buildings two blocks away.

As far as the hijackers snorting coke and going to strip clubs, we've answered that numerous times, but I'll do it again:

1) The Al Qaeda manual (which I have in my desk) states specificaly that in order to avoid standing out, "brothers" may be required to foregoe some aspects of their faith, and may even be required to do things which are strictly forbidden by the Quran. In other words, they fuly understand that operational requirements supercede religious tennents. Just like Sikhs in the military are permitted to cut their hair and shave their beards, despite their religion stipulating otherwise.

2) An individual who expects to go to heaven for commiting murder-suicide isn't going to be too concerned about commiting sins in the days leading up to that act. Muslim men are generaly repressed, both sexualy and in other ways. Muslim fanatics in particular tend to alternate between praying for forgivness and commiting extreme acts which defy their religion. One of the ex-members of my regiment is an EXTREMELY devout Muslim, but when he busts loose, he REALLY busts loose. The guy will spend 48 hours in a drunken stupor, sleep with prostitutes, and get his ass kicked by strangers. Then he'll spend the next two months praying every couple hours, fasting, punishing himself, and chastizing the rest of us for drinking. It's the classic symptoms of a repressed personality, and it's a very common occurence in religious extremists.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

Yeah, OK. I usually hire Egyptian engineers living in Hamburg to smuggle my Afghan opium. Makes perfect sense to me...

Well, we don't really know the logistics of the operation. But going by the Mena Arkansas scandal, we know that the CIA needed to cover their tracks a bit more carefully when they moved the operation to Venice Fl. Atta was paid big money and was often seen sporting a lot of gold. Whatever he was, he was getting paid big time.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:45, Blogger nesNYC said...

There was nothing controlled about that demolition. In controlled demolitions you don't get fragments of the building damaging other buildings two blocks away.

Not really. If the trade towers had been prepared for the implosion like normal CD than the damage to the surrounding buildings would be lessened. However, clearly, the criminals had limited access to do this since the buildings were still operational. Come on guys, use a little brain power, it's not that difficult.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:46, Blogger shawn said...

I like this site, it's hilarious

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:46, Blogger nesNYC said...

2) An individual who expects to go to heaven for commiting murder-suicide isn't going to be too concerned about commiting sins in the days leading up to that act. Muslim men are generaly repressed, both sexualy and in other ways. Muslim fanatics in particular tend to alternate between praying for forgivness and commiting extreme acts which defy their religion.

This is all speculative and contrary to the facts.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:47, Blogger shawn said...

However, clearly, the criminals had limited access to do this since the buildings were still operational.

Well replace "limited" with "not even close to enough time to plant any type of explosives that would demolish a building" and you're right on the money.

Come on guys, use a little brain power, it's not that difficult.

Irony alert.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:48, Blogger James B. said...

Atta was paid big money and was often seen sporting a lot of gold. Whatever he was, he was getting paid big time.


Hey, if you can't trust the Mad Cow Morning News, who can you trust?

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:48, Blogger shawn said...

This is all speculative and contrary to the facts.

hahaha not it isn't! There's precedent for it. There's the goddamn Koran. READ IT SOMETIME.

And if you don't think a majority of Muslim societies are repressed you need to read something other than anti-"Zionist" drivel.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:49, Blogger shawn said...

Nesnyc, even you should be able to see the irony in pushing aside a point because it's spectulative and ignoring the facts. It's what you do practically every time you post on here.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

They are supposed to completely immerse themselves in the enemy society. It isn't "zionist propaganda" you disgusting anti-semite, it's in the GODDAMN KORAN. You've never read the book so stop arguing from ignorance. It says you can lie, cheat, and steal as long as it furthers the cause of Islam and is against infidels.

Since Arabs are Semites too, and you passing Zionist propaganda as coming from the Koran, then you must be anti-Semitic too right?

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:16, Blogger shawn said...

Since Arabs are Semites too, and you passing Zionist propaganda as coming from the Koran

Are you really this dumb? I've read the Koran. I didn't read some website's take on it, I read the book itself.

By the way, Arabs =/= Muslims. There are plenty of Christian and Jewish Arabs, and plenty of non-Arba Muslims (Blacks and Persians). You're such a ridiculous apologist for what the book literally says it's laughable. (But of course you'd say the violent passages in the Old Testament aren't any sort of propoganda.)

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:18, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:22, Blogger CHF said...

There are explosions in every building fire, nesnyc.

CD explosions (of which there would be more than NINE for a 110 floor building) would be heard by thousands.

All of you have in the way of "facts" is your own uneducated opinion as to what flashes and bangs are. Meanwhile CD experts and structural engineers think you're full of shit.

And you still haven't bothered to explain when and how THOUSANDS of charges could be planted without anyone noticing; charges which then withstood raging fires and were set off only making 9 bangs.

You'd be laughed out of any court of law with this "evidence" of yours.

Hmmm...who to trust: experts or some one who seems to average several factual errors per thread?

US-made Scuds...Jesus...

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger shawn said...

About the letter itself:

3. A Neocon(I am actually more or less a socialist who actually left the United States to live in Europe)

Neoconservativism is more-or-less a socialist philosophy with a hawkish foreign policy.

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

(But of course you'd say the violent passages in the Old Testament aren't any sort of propoganda.)

Those old holy book leave a lot up to interpretation. And judging how you're interpreting the solid facts of 9/11, I'd say your interpretation skills are skewed.

There are certain passages in the New Testament that can be twisted to sound Anit-Jewish. There are certain passages in the Talmud that can be twisted to sound anti-Christian. Why wouldn't the Koran be left to the same (mis)interpretation and then seized upon by the Zionists to con you to believe otherwise?

Facts:

1. Someone fanatical to commit a martyr mission has to be clean to do so

2. Atta and company were not "clean" according to their doctrine.

3. Atta and company were connected to CIA front aviation schools and trained in US bases. They already knew how to fly and didn't need flight schools.

4. Atta was often seen drinking and using cocaine. Also, sporting jewelry and had a American Caucasian girlfriend.

5. He was not videotaped or photographed getting on any flights supposedly connected to the 9/11 attacks.


None of your conjecture takes away from any of the above facts.

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:41, Blogger default.xbe said...

The 911eyewitness video was filmed across the river and documents at least 9 separate major explosions as the towers collapsed. These weren't the sounds of the floors crashing into one another; there were explosions that sounded like thunder. Now that fits with your CD scenario doesn't it?

except in a CD there are hundreds of explosions, for something the size of the WTC there would probably be thousands, not just 9

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:46, Blogger nesNYC said...

except in a CD there are hundreds of explosions, for something the size of the WTC there would probably be thousands, not just 9

Key word [MAJOR] the eyewitness closer to the event documented the explosions in-between the major explosions. They stated "crackling sounds" and "flashes."

Logically, the buildings were possibly divided into 10 section increments by major bombs to take away the central core incrementally. The smaller cutter charges took away the floors and pulverized them so the bombs below could do their work.

The Thermite/Thermate in the subbasements took away the central support at the base and initiated the collapses in a downward direction.

The 911eyewitness video is pretty conclusive in that the major blast points went off at perfectly timed increments.

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:47, Blogger shawn said...

Why wouldn't the Koran be left to the same (mis)interpretation and then seized upon by the Zionists to con you to believe otherwise?

The Koran is the only holy book written by a warlord. And it's not "misinterpretation", the Old Testament does order the Chosen People to destroy their enemies.

1. Someone fanatical to commit a martyr mission has to be clean to do so


Wrong. The martyrdom erases all past sins (kind of like confession in Catholicism).

2. Atta and company were not "clean" according to their doctrine.

And that's not odd whatsoever. Ramzi Yousef (you may recall he tried to topple the towers) is a good character to look up.

3. Atta and company were connected to CIA front aviation schools and trained in US bases. They already knew how to fly and didn't need flight schools.

They didn't all know how to fly. They weren't trained by any CIA fronts or US bases.

4. Atta was often seen drinking and using cocaine. Also, sporting jewelry and had a American Caucasian girlfriend.

Again, not odd at all.

5. He was not videotaped or photographed getting on any flights supposedly connected to the 9/11 attacks.

He was caught on tape prior to his flight to Boston. So was he just an innocent victim on his flight from Logan? And not "supposedly" connected, those flights were all crashed.

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:53, Blogger default.xbe said...

Logically, the buildings were possibly divided into 10 section increments by major bombs to take away the central core incrementally. The smaller cutter charges took away the floors and pulverized them so the bombs below could do their work.

logically thats not even close to how CDs are done

and initiated the collapses in a downward direction.

hint: gravity does the downward part

 
At 24 June, 2006 13:54, Blogger Alex said...

Logically, the buildings were possibly divided into 10 section increments by major bombs to take away the central core incrementally. The smaller cutter charges took away the floors and pulverized them so the bombs below could do their work

Logically, you're an idiot, with no concept of how demolition works.

The question still stands: WHY?

If you're going to topple a building, any deomlition expert will tell you that you can do it simply by collapsing the bottom two floors and letting gravity do the rest.

If you're going to do a CONTROLLED demolition, you'd need at the very least something like 10,000 charges for a building like the WTC. Idealy, you'd use many more.

So why do something in between? Break it up into 10 floor sections? Are you retarded? Once you initiate the demolition, there's nothing stopping it, so why bother planting explosives on every 10th floor? None of your conclusions make the least bit of sense.

 
At 24 June, 2006 14:00, Blogger Falco98 said...

The 911eyewitness video was filmed across the river and documents at least 9 separate major explosions as the towers collapsed. These weren't the sounds of the floors crashing into one another; there were explosions that sounded like thunder

It sounded an aweful lot like a mildly gusty wind blowing across the microphone of a camcorder, to me. I've watched a few (completely-unrelated) videos lately and noted such breeze sounds, thinking to myself "man, i wonder where those explosions are coming from!"

 
At 24 June, 2006 14:12, Blogger Falco98 said...

if Atta and the 19 weren’t suicide hijackers than who pulled off 9/11?

Again, here's the example of you deciding on a conclusion first, and then finding facts which seem to support it.

Fortunately for us, so far you're the only one here who buys into this insane idea, so your whole premise is moot. Guess that means the OS is correct! w00t!

 
At 24 June, 2006 16:37, Blogger nesNYC said...

hint: gravity does the downward part

Had the core columns in the basement not been removed prior to the upper explosions, the whole thing would have tipped over.

 
At 24 June, 2006 16:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

Again, here's the example of you deciding on a conclusion first, and then finding facts which seem to support it.

Point is you guys are completely lost because of this fact. The utter failure of the government to conclusively prove, let alone have an decent investigation conducted shows that this whole operation has been held up by lie after lie. Its a house of cards built up on the lie about "Al Qaeda" and even this blog is based on that. Remove it and you are left with NOTHING.

 
At 24 June, 2006 16:43, Blogger shawn said...

Remove it and you are left with NOTHING.

You are correct. When you remove the truth you are left with nothing.

 
At 24 June, 2006 16:58, Blogger default.xbe said...

Had the core columns in the basement not been removed prior to the upper explosions, the whole thing would have tipped over.

simple physics, for that to happen the center of gravity would have to be above a point outside of the towers footprint, or in other words the top of the tower would have to move about 100 feet to the side before it can even begin to tip over (this is of course assuming the who structure can withstand the stresses in a direction they were never intended to endure)

 
At 24 June, 2006 17:47, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I never heard of Jasa Slavjansky. I'm sure Dylan Avery doesn't care what she thinks and he'll release his next movie whether she likes it or not.

 
At 24 June, 2006 19:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

So why do something in between? Break it up into 10 floor sections? Are you retarded? Once you initiate the demolition, there's nothing stopping it, so why bother planting explosives on every 10th floor? None of your conclusions make the least bit of sense.

If you recall the failed OK City CD, then you'll know why they put in redundancies with the WTC. They wanted no mistakes this time and wanted the thing to be bought down completly with no traces left of anything. That's exaclty what happened.

If you're going to topple a building, any deomlition expert will tell you that you can do it simply by collapsing the bottom two floors and letting gravity do the rest.

If you're going to do a CONTROLLED demolition, you'd need at the very least something like 10,000 charges for a building like the WTC. Idealy, you'd use many more.


So what is it, the bottom two floors or 10,000 charges? Gee, as mixed up as you are, you should be staying clear of this topic.

But you should note the trade towers weren't built like other buildings so they needed fewer explosives to compromise the structure. All that was needed was to take away the basement columns and this created stresses shaped like a vortex and then chop up the spine while at the same time blowing out the floors. All the videos of the event show just that and the molten metal fires in the basement also point to that. Get your facts straight.

 
At 24 June, 2006 19:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

You are correct. When you remove the truth you are left with nothing.

To clarify, what I'm saying is that if you remove the lie about Osama, then the 9/11 scam falls to pieces, so does this blog that depends on that lie.

 
At 24 June, 2006 19:09, Blogger James B. said...

To clarify, what I'm saying is that if you remove the lie about Osama, then the 9/11 scam falls to pieces, so does this blog that depends on that lie.


Not really, we are dedicated to exposing the lies and distortions of Loose Change and the conspiracy movement. We have shown dozens of examples of their lies, which exist independent of whether Osama is a Saudi terrorist or a girl scout.

 
At 24 June, 2006 20:30, Blogger Nutman said...

why doesn't anyone even point out that in a CD you do it from the bottom to the top always. And the fact that one of the best CD companies in the world said it definetly wasn't a CD.

 
At 24 June, 2006 20:39, Blogger undense said...

Had the core columns in the basement not been removed prior to the upper explosions, the whole thing would have tipped over.

You've got it exactly backwards. IF the core columns had been "removed" the whole thing likely would have tipped over. It's precisely because they weren't removed, and the fact that the lower perimeter columns were still intact, that the towers didn't tip over. Their remaining structural integrity prevented the towers from tipping. In fact, you can see plenty of post-collapse images where the columns in the basement are still attached to their footings and standing upright for multiple stories.

To cause a collapse you'd need to take out a significant number of columns. Because if that were not true the tower would have collapsed in the 1993 bombing.

 
At 24 June, 2006 22:03, Blogger default.xbe said...

You've got it exactly backwards. IF the core columns had been "removed" the whole thing likely would have tipped over. It's precisely because they weren't removed, and the fact that the lower perimeter columns were still intact, that the towers didn't tip over. Their remaining structural integrity prevented the towers from tipping. In fact, you can see plenty of post-collapse images where the columns in the basement are still attached to their footings and standing upright for multiple stories.

i still doubt it would have tipped, but you are correct in stating that keeping the lower collumns intact would prevent the top from moving to a point to allow it to tip over

 
At 24 June, 2006 22:28, Blogger shawn said...

If you recall the failed OK City CD

Uh the explosion in Oklahoma City (why am I not surprised you ignore all the evidence and assume its the government?) was even less like a controlled demolition than WTC (especially since the whole side of the building was torn off).

 
At 24 June, 2006 23:14, Blogger default.xbe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 June, 2006 23:15, Blogger default.xbe said...

(comment deleted, spelling)

i think OKC was one of those things that would have been harder to do on purpose

 
At 25 June, 2006 02:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

Uh the explosion in Oklahoma City (why am I not surprised you ignore all the evidence and assume its the government?) was even less like a controlled demolition than WTC (especially since the whole side of the building was torn off).

OKC was a CD and McVeigh was a patsy. That's fact well established.

 
At 25 June, 2006 02:11, Blogger nesNYC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25 June, 2006 02:12, Blogger nesNYC said...

Here's some news footage presented by Alex Jones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6m88MAsR8I

 
At 25 June, 2006 04:01, Blogger Alex said...

OKC was a CD and McVeigh was a patsy. That's fact well established.

I was going to explain some of the other points to you, but after that....I'm done. I can't argue with someone this fucked up.

 
At 25 June, 2006 04:23, Blogger MarkyX said...


why doesn't anyone even point out that in a CD you do it from the bottom to the top always. And the fact that one of the best CD companies in the world said it definetly wasn't a CD.


I have stated that several times in my SLC.

 
At 25 June, 2006 08:10, Blogger apathoid said...

OKC was a CD and McVeigh was a patsy. That's fact well established.

Get help dude. I say this because I care. I hope its not too late.

 
At 25 June, 2006 11:08, Blogger undense said...

OKC was a CD and McVeigh was a patsy. That's fact well established.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but "well established" is not a euphamism for "pulled out of my ass."

 
At 25 June, 2006 15:04, Blogger shawn said...

OKC was a CD and McVeigh was a patsy. That's fact well established.

It doesn't look even remotely like a controlled demolition you utter moron. It's not a "well established" facr in any sense of the phrase. What's well established is an anti-government extremist detonated a van laden with an explosive concoction outside the federal building in Oklahoma City.

 
At 26 June, 2006 07:08, Blogger CHF said...

for the love of GOD, CTers: talk to some CD experts.

Seriously, it'll clear up a lot of your "beliefs."

 
At 26 June, 2006 09:36, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

This is Jasa Slovjanski. First of all, I am a GUY. Now let me address some of these "points".


1. I don't give a flying f$%& if Dylan Avery has never heard of me. I would rather be totally anonymous than to be internationally known for making a "documentary" riddled with factual errors that wouldn't exist in a Freshman BOOK REPORT.

2. To the person that claimed that Neoconservatives are "socialists". You are a moron. Neoconservatives were instrumental in waging a war to undermine and destroy the lives of million of people in Eastern Europe- which is precisely the result of the Cold War. Neocons favor privatization of EVERYTHING, hardly something that a socialist does.

3. CTs, one of the the major points I brought up to Avery was the incredibly poor quality of their research(an understatement), using the "Javelin" remark by one of his associates as an example.

Merely SUGGESTING that a Javelin ANTI-TANK missile could have caused that damage to the Pentagon, EVEN IF the damage they cited was correct(which it isn't)is simply unacceptable for someone claiming to be "researching truth".

Here are some alternative statements they could make that would be roughly equal:

"I think the damage to the Pentagon might have been done with a Kar98k Mauser!"

"The damage may have been done by an RPG7V"

"The damage may have been done by a chicken launched out of a cannon"

Seriously folks, that's the difference in damage between a cruise missile and a Javelin. Of course, one must remember that cruise missiles do not leave behind parts of commercial aircraft or positively IDed body parts of passengers.

Again- TALK TO A DEMOLITIONS EXPERT!

 
At 26 June, 2006 13:34, Blogger Alex said...

Cruise missiles also don't damage three rings of a reinforced concrete building. TH CTers STILL can't come up with a even remotely logical explanation of what hit the pentagon.

 
At 26 June, 2006 18:16, Blogger shawn said...

2. To the person that claimed that Neoconservatives are "socialists". You are a moron.

"Neoconservativism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to "big government" principles and believe in limited restrictions on social spending."

Big government and limited restrictions on social spending is socialist. Traditionally, conservatives want the smallest possible government and harsh restrictions on social spending.

Neoconservatives were instrumental in waging a war to undermine and destroy the lives of million of people in Eastern Europe- which is precisely the result of the Cold War.

Because it was a paradise under the Soviet Union, right?

Neocons favor privatization of EVERYTHING, hardly something that a socialist does.

Obviously you are incorrect.

 
At 26 June, 2006 18:17, Blogger shawn said...

By the way, the people that want privatization of (nearly) everything are called libertarians (which I am).

 
At 26 June, 2006 22:57, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 June, 2006 23:03, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Sorry pal, Neoconservatives privatize. Look how they railed against the Belarussian president Lukashenko; this happens because he maintained the state socialist economy, which has managed to secure for Belarussians a standard of living far above the miserable Ukraine and even that of the Russian Federation. Apparently you don't read the news.

Also, you are clearly unfamiliar with life in the Soviet Union. Most likely your sources of information come from the same nonsensical and ignorant rants of the Cold War hawks(many of whom became neocons). Everything about life in the Soviet Union must be filtered through the context of A: How life was before the revolution, and B: How life is now.

After looking at these two factors with obejctive and experience eyes one realizes that yes, the Soviet Union was something of a paradise despite the fact that it was a nation in progress.

 
At 27 June, 2006 08:20, Blogger shawn said...

Look how they railed against the Belarussian president

Uh he's the only Soviet-era tyrant still in power over there. Did you think of that?

Also, you are

After WW2 and the Nazis, it's my second most researched topic (and usually from primary documents or books written by Russians).

After looking at these two factors with obejctive and experience eyes one realizes that yes, the Soviet Union was something of a paradise despite the fact that it was a nation in progress.

The Soviet Union was one of the most repressive empires in the history of humanity and was hell on Earth. It's not ignorant to say these things, because it's what its citizens have said time and time again. Stalin rivals Hitler for people killed. The entire enterprise was under the guise of democracy, when it was an autocratic dictatorship supported by secret police.

 
At 27 June, 2006 14:11, Blogger Alex said...

Rather reminds me of the Iraq argument. There's still people who will tell you that Iraq was a paradise under Sadam. Some of those people lived there at the time, and were the ones in power. Others are simply outsiders who like to beleive that things only get worse when the evil capitalists intervene. Either way, Soviet and Iraqi revisionists have a lot in common.

 
At 28 June, 2006 01:31, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Sorry Shawn, but your claim to expertise on Russian issues doesn't impress me by your rather cookie-cutter statements. In addition to actually being of Russian descent, I have studied these issues for almost ten years now, have lived in Russia before, and not only do I currently live in Eastern Europe but I am most likely moving to the Moscow area at the end of the summer.

Your comments on Lukashenko show your dependence on Western media; ignoring the fact that even his worst enemies(World Bank and IMF) admit that he has drastically reduced poverty, elevated standards of living, and lowered taxes. That is why he won in a landslide, not election fraud.

Eastern Europe is my backyard, not yours. I suggest you drop the Reaganesque propaganda because it's nothing but a joke here.

 
At 28 June, 2006 09:45, Blogger James B. said...

I would have agree with Shawn, and I got my degree in Russian Studies, speak the language, and have traveled and worked in some of the former Soviet Republics, as well as the former Yugoslavia. I am one of those "ignorant Cold War hawks" you speak of.

Lukashenko is a tyrant, just like Lenin and Uncle Joe. Just because he makes the trains run on time does not change that. When Stalin died millions turned out for his funeral to mourn him. Thousands were trampled to death. He was a butcher, he killed millions, but to this day people still praise his socialist memory.

Ponimaesh tovarishsch?

 
At 28 June, 2006 10:14, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Great, another American who read some books and then believes he is going to tell a Russian the history of his country.

Sorry but your claims about Lukashenko are false. I am not impressed by your "Russian studies" or the fact that you may have travelled in some of these countries.

Lukashenko does more than keep "trains running on time". He keeps Belarussia's remaining wealth in Belarus.

Everything that happened post-USSR in Russia, and especially Ukraine, proves WHY socialism was important and should have been maintained. The various oligarchs, corrupt officials, and other scum show why Stalinist tactics were needed back then, and they are needed now.

 
At 28 June, 2006 11:04, Blogger James B. said...

Everything that happened post-USSR in Russia, and especially Ukraine, proves WHY socialism was important and should have been maintained. The various oligarchs, corrupt officials, and other scum show why Stalinist tactics were needed back then, and they are needed now.


Sorry,but my "books" tell me that murdering tens of millions of people is no more justifiable under Soviet socialism than under National Socialism.

You cannot argue that just because you are Russian (or vaguely of Russian descent) that you somehow hold the truth, anymore than I can argue that because I am American you cannot hold a more correct view on American politics than I do. I have met Russians who mourn the death of Stalin, but I have also met Russians who were some of the most free market pro-US types you could ever find. Their ethnicity does not give them infallibility.

I even met Yelena Bonner once, I think she knows more about the true nature of Soviet communism than someone who just lived there for a while.

poka

 
At 29 June, 2006 04:55, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I am not claiming that my Russian descent is the reason why you are wrong. As I said before, I have been studying Russian history for over ten years now.

Under what authority to you claim that the Soviets murdered tens of millions of people?

You may also want to note the class of those "pro-free market" Russians. Notice that people that have money seem to be VERY pro-Capitalism, and those that lose their daughters to forced prostitution and can't afford proper health care or education seem to support the Soviet system a little more.

The problem is that Russia cannot survive unless there is democracy for ALL the people, not the minority of business owners. Granted, the Soviet government made many mistakes in the context of several conflicts in socialism's history(and yes, these were conflicts), but when you see the kind of rat that is successful in Russia today- you will understand that some people MUST be killed to save millions more.

That's just the way life works in the real world.

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:52, Blogger Alex said...

"Notice that people that have money seem to be VERY pro-Capitalism, and those that lose their daughters to forced prostitution and can't afford proper health care or education seem to support the Soviet system a little more."

Actually, I find it to be the other way around. Once people have been oppressed for a while by tyrants who claim to be doing it "for your own good", the poor tend to be the first to start breaking out the system. Meanwhile, the rich keep deluding themselves into thinking that taxing the people more while providing useless services will somehow make the situation better.

 
At 30 June, 2006 03:37, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

You find it to be the "other way around" where, Alex? Not in Russia definitely. Government has a responsibility to serve its people; the majority of them. Otherwise it is useless.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home