Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Screw Loose Change on the Radio!

(This post will remain near the top until tomorrow--scroll down for newer content)

I'll be on Constitutional Public Radio with Andrea Shea-King and Mark Vance Tuesday afternoon at 4:05 Eastern time. CPR is broadcast on AM 1510 WWBC, Brevard County, Florida. For those not lucky enough to live on Florida's Space Coast, you can listen in over the internet.

We'll be discussing Loose Change, and Screw Loose Change. I have been on with Andrea and Mark before and they always keep it interesting and lively, so be sure to listen in!

There's also an online chat feature here so you can interact with us on the show. Just type in your name, city and state and submit query to get into the chat.

Thanks to my buddy Third Wave Dave for setting this up!

Update: Looks like we might get some company. Let me say here that James and I have said zero about Dylan's girlfriend here, so I don't know what he's talking about. She may have come up in the comments, but we don't control those, anymore than he controls Killtown's nutty posts about no planes at the WTC in his forum.

62 Comments:

At 17 July, 2006 11:04, Blogger Chad said...

Any chance it will be archived?

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:34, Blogger BG said...

Another 9/11 Truth MP3 to Entertain

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:37, Blogger Pepik said...

Lyrics:

"you say that we should blindly believe our governments"

Oh yeah, I read that on the debunk forums all the time.

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:38, Blogger BG said...

Pepik,

glad to you are paying attention. :-)

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:49, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 July, 2006 11:50, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, I mean Radio? Like, no pictures?

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:41, Blogger debunking911 said...

It's our turn now! :P

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:45, Blogger BG said...

Powerful Video:


9/11 Was an Inside Job: Donna Marsh O'Conner Speaks Out

 
At 17 July, 2006 12:48, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Sweet....give them hell...or at least the real TRUTH

 
At 17 July, 2006 13:01, Blogger Chad said...

Another 9/11 Truth MP3 to Entertain

And that it did, my friend.

.... That it did.

 
At 17 July, 2006 13:22, Blogger MarkyX said...

Interesting...

I might be in the chatroom :)

 
At 17 July, 2006 18:30, Blogger Pat said...

Yeeesh, BG, that woman needs counseling and support, not a microphone.

 
At 17 July, 2006 20:24, Blogger Murdervillage said...

Um, bg, what's your point in linking to that video?

 
At 17 July, 2006 20:29, Blogger undense said...

bg has no point in his video linkage. When he runs across something HE thinks is interesting, no matter how looney or far fetched, bg feels automatically obliged to share with everyone else by posting a link in here.

Don't expect his links to actually be on topic though.

He should change his username to D-rail.

 
At 18 July, 2006 00:06, Blogger default.xbe said...

well i guess this is about as related as anything bg posts, heres a dutch techno song about an irc script

Boten Anna

:)

 
At 18 July, 2006 09:19, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 July, 2006 09:21, Blogger BG said...

Murdervillage,

Looks like undense wants to answer questions for me.

My purpose for linking the video, and for commenting is a matter of believing that there has been a cover up of the truth about 9/11. A real investigation is what is called for. This video shows one Mom of a victim who agrees that the govt. actions following 9/11 have been reprehensible.

By the way, my posts are never meant to be about debating the Loose Change video. I suppose I could be accused of being "off-topic" for that. I think that this blog's intended effect is to squelch all reasonable discussion (allegedly by debunking) questions about 9/11.

It's not a concept (saying that's no further investigation needed) that fits the evidence for me. Ergo, I endeavor to make periodic efforts to combat the lies by the bloggers here.

 
At 18 July, 2006 09:50, Blogger James B. said...

Ergo, I endeavor to make periodic efforts to combat the lies by the bloggers here.


Huh? To this day, after hundreds of comments you have yet to point out a single one of our "lies". You usually don't even address our posts at all.

 
At 18 July, 2006 10:36, Blogger undense said...

My purpose for linking the video, and for commenting is a matter of believing that there has been a cover up of the truth about 9/11. A real investigation is what is called for.

Believing there has been a coverup and providing actual proof are two different things. You can believe whatever you want. Proving your belief is right is another story completely and you fall woefully short in that area. Innuendo and anecdotes don't make for proof.

As far as an investigation, there already has been one that covered everything pretty well. When you say you want a "real investigation" what you really mean is you want a kangoroo court run by like-minded luntics and paranoids who can slam their gavel down and claim "GUILTY" without demonstrating a shred of hard evidence.

So whine on and on about your "real investigation." It's a straw man because you haven't produced any convincing evidence whatsoever, at least to those with more than half a brain, that another investigation is required.

 
At 18 July, 2006 10:49, Blogger BG said...

James,

The big lies:

1) WTC7 collapse has been addressed in a legitimate honest manner by structural engineers or any scientific body.

2) WTC Pyroclastic flow explained

3) WTC molten metal explained

4) bomb in the basement witness testimony

5) Odd Naudet Video of hit #1 at WTC explained

6) Odd Cell Phone Calls

7) Odd Moussiaui Procecution

8) Odd withholding of Pentagon evidence

the list goes on and on.

Every prentense that reasonable questions about the areas above have been answered are LIES.

 
At 18 July, 2006 10:49, Blogger default.xbe said...

This video shows one Mom of a victim who agrees that the govt. actions following 9/11 have been reprehensible.

many people believe their action following 9/11 have been bad, and that they used 9/11 to their own advantage, and benefitted greatly from it, but that doesnt mean 9/11 was anything more than an al-qaeda plot

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:05, Blogger Pat said...

BG, None of those are things we've "lied" about.

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:21, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

So you are acknowledging there are legitimate questions in these areas?

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:23, Blogger James B. said...

This comment by Dylan cracked me up.

EDIT: on second thought, no, we won't. if you guys are going to, just keep it polite, mature and respectful. you know, the opposite of them.

Now who was it again that was bragging that their fans were calling up a certain lawfirm and threatening them?

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:33, Blogger Manny said...

Pretty much the same guys who just casually accuse Larry Silverstein of treason and then get offended because one of your commenters (it was "Avery Dylan," BTW) casually mentioned the existence of Dylan's girlfriend (who had also been mentioned in the VF article).

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:33, Blogger undense said...

The big lies:

1) WTC7 collapse has been addressed in a legitimate honest manner by structural engineers or any scientific body.


It's being addressed by NIST now. Nobody has claimed that reports from structural engineers are available. Nice straw man.

2) WTC Pyroclastic flow explained

There was no "pyroclastic flow."

3) WTC molten metal explained

This issue has been addressed many, many times.

4) bomb in the basement witness testimony

Why is it that witnesses are not valid unless they say what you want to hear?

5) Odd Naudet Video of hit #1 at WTC explained

Circumstance. Coincidence. Luck. Not everything is this world happens according to devious, concocted plans, bg.

6) Odd Cell Phone Calls

Explained already.

7) Odd Moussiaui Procecution

Straw man.

8) Odd withholding of Pentagon evidence

Since when is withholding evidence unusual?

the list goes on and on.

Yes, straw men can be built on an assembly line too.

Every prentense that reasonable questions about the areas above have been answered are LIES.

The pretense that your questions above are reasonable is a lie. Poor rationales and speculation based on distortions only serves to make the CTs look ignorant as well as dishonest. That's not to mention the preponderance of evidence to the contrary of your stories that CTs like you willfully overlook to pursue your baseless theories.

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:34, Blogger Pat said...

BG, #1 is legit, at least until the NIST report is released. #2 is silly since it can't be disproven until we get video of a large building collapsing that everybody will acknowledge was not brought down by controlled demolition. In other words, ain't gonna happen anytime soon because those are rare occurences. #3 is legit, although I strongly suspect there is a scientific explanation. The rest are just the usual "questions". What is "odd" about the Naudet video? What was "odd" about the cellphone/Airfone calls?

 
At 18 July, 2006 11:41, Blogger telescopemerc said...

1) WTC7 collapse has been addressed in a legitimate honest manner by structural engineers or any scientific body.

You make it sound is if it never will. NIST is working on it, there's probably more than a elements that lead to the collapse.

More to the point, no structural engineers or demolition experts consider WTC7 to have any evidence of demolition.

So the liars here are the CTs who act as if there is something truly odd with WTC7.

 
At 18 July, 2006 12:06, Blogger THIRDWAVEDAVE said...

The show is repeated at 9pm EST on the same link.

 
At 18 July, 2006 12:08, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

What does it matter. Most CTs believe NIST is part fo teh cover up, so their report, to them, will be meaningless.

 
At 18 July, 2006 13:21, Blogger BG said...

The Artistic Macrophage said...

What does it matter. Most CTs believe NIST is part fo teh cover up, so their report, to them, will be meaningless.

Here's the honest debate, here, Macrophage.

1) It's fair to say that a particlar document is flawed (which it appears that some NIST documents about 9/11 are).

2) It's fair to say that the 9/11 Commission Report was flawed (which it appears it was).

3) It's fair to say the 9/11 Commission Report was flawed likely because those who compose and influence the Commission wanted it to be what it was.

4) It's fair to speculate the allegedly flawed NIST reports were flawed because those who compose and influence NIST wanted it to be what it was.

5. In the public press conferences or other airing of NIST Reports and 9/11 Commission Reports, it appears that no significant time has been spent on justifying the flaws or debating why the documents are not flawed.

HOWEVER, none of this, even if you accept it,(and you point out correctly is often the opinion of many government story skeptics (GSS'ers)), implies that ALL NIST documents or ALL work product of the 9/11 Commission is False.

To the contrary of what your proclaim, if NIST brings forward a defensible document on WTC 7, I will be the first to applaud it.

 
At 18 July, 2006 13:39, Blogger BG said...

Pat said...

BG, #1 is legit, at least until the NIST report is released. #2 is silly since it can't be disproven until we get video of a large building collapsing that everybody will acknowledge was not brought down by controlled demolition. In other words, ain't gonna happen anytime soon because those are rare occurences. #3 is legit, although I strongly suspect there is a scientific explanation. The rest are just the usual "questions". What is "odd" about the Naudet video? What was "odd" about the cellphone/Airfone calls?

-------------------------------
I will take the points in the reverse order:

1) Both the alleged cell phone and "Airfone" calls have oddities.

My claim accusing you of lying was specificly about the cell phone calls. The are two classes of oddities with the claimed cell phone calls from alleged planes involved in hijacking on 9/11:

a) The probability that a call from a cell phone actually happened, given the altitude of the flight, if indeed the flight was cruising altitude expected of the plane. One way of explaining the apparent highly improbable occurence of this would be evidence that the flight was flying under, say, 2000 ft. I would welcome radar or other evidence that would offer clarification of this. None has been offered as far as I know.

b) The other oddity, that has been discussed (not here) is the strange conflict between what would be expected behavior versus what has been reported. Specifically, I don't think any report of the "hijacker's" actions includes killing or disabling a majority of the passengers on any given plane prior to it's "crash". Therefore, the idea, that, in the case of Flight 93, that only a few passengers are reported as using their cellphones or Airphones to make calls raising the question:

Is is really possible that the other had cell phone that failed while a choosen few cell phones were successful?

Why is it that Barbara Olson was able to connect multiple times, and there are very few others who connected at all?

Is it really possible that others failed to use their Airphones in lieu of their Cell phones?

To continue, I think I should create a web page and post a link, rather than make a really long comment.

 
At 18 July, 2006 13:58, Blogger apathoid said...

8) Odd withholding of Pentagon evidence

This has been explained to you, BG. The government has no obligation to show you all the videos, nor do they have a legal right to release this footage because it doesnt belong to them...

If you want these videos to be released, talk to the hotels and gas stations in the area.

3) WTC molten metal explained

It has been explained many times. Furthermore, I fail to see how this helps your case since
- molten metals are common in house fires
- Thermite doesnt keep burning for 8 weeks.

2) WTC Pyroclastic flow explained

A dust cloud is not a pyroclastic flow. It just looks like one. This term has been coined because some know-nothing idiot in the Truth movement wanted to sound smart...

5) Odd Naudet Video of hit #1 at WTC explained

Imagine that, someone actually had a camera rolling in Lower Manhatten, one of the busiest, most densely populated and touristy areas on the face of Gods green Earth, at the time if the accident. Inconceivable!

I actually cant believe that there wasnt more footage of the first impact..

6) Odd Cell Phone Calls
Odd, seeing that one of the FAAs priorities right now is finding a solution to all the Cell phone realted problems that airlines are reporting
Also, there are contraptions called Airphones, courtesy of Verizon, instelled in every seat group on most airliners...(yeah, yeah, but you need a credit card)

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:02, Blogger apathoid said...

b) The other oddity, that has been discussed (not here) is the strange conflict between what would be expected behavior versus what has been reported

WTF, they were facing imminent death !! Jesus H. Christ on a popcicle, I'm sorry those poor folks didnt meet your rigorous standards of approval in this matter.

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:03, Blogger Murdervillage said...

Excellent job on the radio, Pat. Very articulate.

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:07, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Yes,

Great job guys. The CTers were going NUTS!

Mission Accomplished!

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:09, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

I can't believe you're actually arguing the "phone calls were impossible" claim.

AirPhones, bg. They do in fact exist. Meanwhile, cell phones generally do not work at cruising altitude but they can and do often work at lower altitudes (ie. when the two Flight 93 calls were made). I've personally seen a few cell phone ring while flying in/out of Toronto.

But I guess the whole phone call issue is kinda crucial for your claims, isn't it?

I mean if those calls were in fact made....

well then that points to hijackers. And we know where that leads.

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:17, Blogger Jujigatami said...

I just flew from Newark to Reno NV, through Houston.

For a hoot, I left my cell phone on to see if I had any signal.

Guess what. I had signal for about 5 minutes after take off, then I had signal (varying between 1 and 3 bars) for almost 15 minutes before we landed in Houston, then for about 5 minutes again after takeoff from Houston, and then I got a 1 bar signal for about a 2 minutes before we landed in Reno.

It turns out that if you aren't at cruising altitude, you can use your cell phone on a plane.

What altitude were the calls made from on 9/11? Anyone? Bueller?

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:26, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Man, I was hoping they'd show the video of the missile hitting the Pentagon on the radio show!

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:35, Blogger Dean Malenko Eats Dogs said...

Here's a link to a recording I made of the show while it aired using Audacity. The quality isn't the the best quality, but it serves the purpose:

http://rapidshare.de/files/26221800/the-show.mp3.html

 
At 18 July, 2006 14:53, Blogger BG said...

'chf,


I can't believe you're actually arguing the "phone calls were impossible" claim.'

You Dog. You are lying. Reread what I wrote. I said there are unanswered questions.

With the exception of Pat and James, there's not much intregity here arguing the screwloosechange side.

 
At 18 July, 2006 15:02, Blogger Manny said...

You Dog. You are lying. Reread what I wrote. I said there are unanswered questions.

But there ARE NO FUCKING UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUCKING PHONE CALLS, YOU DISHONEST FUCK.

Some people used airphones. Others used cell phones and, against the odds but not against any laws of physics, got through. They talked, in real time, to real people. It happened. Questions answered.

 
At 18 July, 2006 15:05, Blogger debunking911 said...

BG,

1) The NIST hasnb't come out with their report and you are already saying it's wrong. BS

2) was anyone burned by a 212 degree F dust cloud? NO? Than how the hell can you say there was a pyroclastic flow moron. Pyroclastic flows START at 212 degrees F.

3) Molten metal IS EXPLAINED...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

4) you have zero evidence of bombs in the basement. William said one thing one day then another when he sues. Very unbelievable.

I know you don't like those facts but tough nuggies.

 
At 18 July, 2006 15:10, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

"I said there are unanswered questions."

Ah yes, the ol' "just asking questions" routine.

Well that's where you're asleep at the wheel, bg.

Your questions HAVE been answered. A thousand fucking times. And I just answered them for the 1,001st.

- Cell phones WORK at low altitudes

- Air phones work at any altitude

Your mentality is so fucked up that you can read that response and not think it has the slightest thing to do with your "unanswered questions."

This is the problem with you CTers (and I do believe it's a form of mental illness)

YOU ASK QUESTIONS AND YET ARE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT ANSWERS.

You're either doing a horrible job of ignoring evidence or you're simply retarded.

Which is it?

 
At 18 July, 2006 15:15, Blogger James B. said...

Hey, calm down guys. Try and keep the language PG-13 now.

 
At 18 July, 2006 15:20, Blogger CHF said...

james,

will do. Sorry about the potty mouth.

It's just that part of me refuses to believe that poeple this dumb are in fact walking amongst us.

I'm trying to fight that reality; I don't want to believe it!

So it gets really frustrating when I answer a guy's question in clear English and he then acts as if I was talking about the weather in China..in Chinese.

 
At 18 July, 2006 16:11, Blogger undense said...

a) The probability that a call from a cell phone actually happened, given the altitude of the flight, if indeed the flight was cruising altitude expected of the plane. One way of explaining the apparent highly improbable occurence of this would be evidence that the flight was flying under, say, 2000 ft. I would welcome radar or other evidence that would offer clarification of this. None has been offered as far as I know.

What was the altitude of the flight bg? Or is it, as per your usual modus oprandi in here, you won't commit to any hard answers because if you don't nobody can prove you wrong and you can keep up your charade.

I notice you never, ever commit to anything. You ask fluff questions loaded with innuendo but fail to address anything with facts of any kind. That's why you have no case at all and haven't proved a thing. Until you begin arguing some cold, hard facts that can prove anything you claim, you never will prove your CT claims either.

 
At 18 July, 2006 18:20, Blogger apathoid said...

Listening to the replay now..

Is there any way to get a transcript of the chat?

 
At 18 July, 2006 18:32, Blogger Pat said...

Apathoid, I have it at the office, send me an email and I'll send you a text file.

 
At 18 July, 2006 19:03, Blogger apathoid said...

Will do Pat, I am just curious as to who Eli is and what he was saying!!

 
At 18 July, 2006 19:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The main peice of evidence the Ct community uses for the phone call arguement, is that "experiment" the computer engineer in Ontario did, where he flew in an 8 x 3 mile oval 4 times, from an airport that sits 4 miles from its city, and that city only has about 400,000 people in it.

Not very convincing.

 
At 18 July, 2006 19:58, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man I mean Eli?

I mean Canadawantsthetruth
-Wow, I really pissed that guy off. I'm Eli, if anyone is there. -

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8356

 
At 18 July, 2006 20:20, Blogger apathoid said...

from avery dylans thread..
This whole thing is an absolute joke. It is disinfo central and they won't even take a call from any of the Truthers.

Gee, I dunno, maybe if one of them would've actually called in, they wouldve taken one of their calls...

Idiots.

Great job Pat, too bad none of the pantywaist Troofers had it in 'em to call in and attempt to make their case..

 
At 18 July, 2006 20:44, Blogger MarkyX said...

Ah Eli..

Was she the stupid one or the dumb one?

 
At 19 July, 2006 04:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Actually, if it is the Eli I know, TThe Canada wants the truth Eli, then he is a friend of mine. He is a good guy, who is passionate about what he believes in, but I just think he is being mislead by what he reads without much fact to back it up...but still a nice guy, in person.

 
At 19 July, 2006 09:22, Blogger undense said...

What was the altitude of the flight bg? Or is it, as per your usual modus oprandi in here, you won't commit to any hard answers because if you don't nobody can prove you wrong and you can keep up your charade.

*crickets*

As I thought. Same ol' bg.

 
At 19 July, 2006 13:37, Blogger Alex said...

Actually, if it is the Eli I know, TThe Canada wants the truth Eli, then he is a friend of mine. He is a good guy, who is passionate about what he believes in, but I just think he is being mislead by what he reads without much fact to back it up...but still a nice guy, in person.

Nobody ever said that crazy people can't be nice. The news reports are full of people saying things like "Bill was always such a nice guy! I would have never imagined he could shoot up a daycare center that way...."

 
At 19 July, 2006 15:02, Blogger apathoid said...

Nobody ever said that crazy people can't be nice.

Indeed. Most people who knew the 911 hijackers said they were nice, pleasnat people. Decorum and sanity are two entirely different parts of the brain!

 
At 19 July, 2006 15:57, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

No, I know him personally. He isn't insane, I just think he is so passionate, his comments may come off that way. I think his pov is mislead by alot of the CT propaganda, and he has heavily bought into it. You know what, though, he is a big boy, and can defend himself, so I'm finished.

 
At 19 July, 2006 18:35, Blogger Pat said...

Apathoid, that reminds me that several of the people who knew Atta talked about what a handsome man he was. Of course 99.9% of the time we see that scowling photo which I believe comes from his passport.

 
At 19 July, 2006 19:46, Blogger apathoid said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 19 July, 2006 19:50, Blogger apathoid said...

It is interesting Pat. 911Myths has photos up of all 19 of the hijackers and I tell ya, I've been on many a flight that had much more gangly looking Arab men than any of these guys.
Ziad Jarrah doesnt even look remotely Middle Eastern. Hanjour and a few other look more Hispanic than Arabic. 4-5 others you would never think twice about. On top of all that, they were all dressed in business casual type attire. I'll bet the passengers never gave any one of them a second thought at first glance at the boarding gate.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home