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.
posted by Pat @ 1:35 PM
38 comments
38 Comments:
Any chance it will be archived?
Another 9/11 Truth MP3 to Entertain
Lyrics:
"you say that we should blindly believe our governments"
Oh yeah, I read that on the debunk forums all the time.
Pepik,
glad to you are paying attention. :-)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Like, hey man, I mean Radio? Like, no pictures?
Powerful Video:
9/11 Was an Inside Job: Donna Marsh O'Conner Speaks Out
Sweet....give them hell...or at least the real TRUTH
Another 9/11 Truth MP3 to Entertain
And that it did, my friend.
.... That it did.
Yeeesh, BG, that woman needs counseling and support, not a microphone.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
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.
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.
BG, None of those are things we've "lied" about.
Pat,
So you are acknowledging there are legitimate questions in these areas?
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?
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).
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?
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.
The show is repeated at 9pm EST on the same link.
What does it matter. Most CTs believe NIST is part fo teh cover up, so their report, to them, will be meaningless.
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.
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.
Yes,
Great job guys. The CTers were going NUTS!
Mission Accomplished!
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?
Man, I was hoping they'd show the video of the missile hitting the Pentagon on the radio show!
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
'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.
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.
Hey, calm down guys. Try and keep the language PG-13 now.
Apathoid, I have it at the office, send me an email and I'll send you a text file.
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.
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
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.
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...."
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.
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home