Friday, September 22, 2006

SLC: Quarter Million Served

And three quarters of a million pages.

Thanks! Yes, we're piggy-backing off Dylan and the Loosers, but we are definitely providing the information people need to debunk Loose Change. If we were selling their warmed over conspiracy crap and charging $17.95/DVD I might feel embarrassed.

45 Comments:

At 22 September, 2006 08:20, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

Screw Loose Change:

Providing the intentionally ignored missing pieces to Loose Change for those Truthers brave enough to face them.

For free!

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:05, Blogger Dean Malenko Eats Dogs said...

You really need to add bumper stickers like Dylan offers as well. Only $8.95!

I'll finally be able cover up all the rust on my Chevette!

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:07, Blogger CHF said...

Good jobs SLC!

Keep up the fight against ignorance.

In other news, I'm pleased to say that I just got a letter from Time magazine saying that parts of my letter to the editor (regarding 9/11 CTs) will be published in their next edition.

My full letter, for the record, is as follows:

The first time I looked into 9/11 conspiracy theories I was stunned that anybody could be convinced by such shoddy "evidence." The theorists themselves know they have nothing: press them for solid proof and they claim that they’re "just asking questions."

Indeed, they usually can't even agree with each other, which is why they constantly accuse one another of being "government disinformation agents."

Most conspiracies follow the same logical pattern. All evidence and expert testimony backing up the official story is "fake" or "planted" while the lack of evidence backing up the conspiracy theory is merely "proof" that the evidence is being covered up.

With no structural engineers or controlled demolitions experts backing up the conspiracy nonsense, the "Truthers" rely instead on a cast of characters who are nuttier than squirrel dung.

There's Dylan Avery, whos "Loose Change" is filled with inaccuracies and lies, blithering lunatics like Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones, laughable academics like Steven Jones, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (who doesn't think planes hit the Towers). Meanwhile, the Internet blogger "Killtown" (included in Time's list of links) has shown that he's a well-rounded conspiracy theorist by downplaying the Holocaust on several occasions.

They make for good comedy, if nothing else.


(I sure hope they include the part about Killtown!)

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:58, Blogger Chad said...

Nice CHF. Gonna have to pick that one up. :)

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:48, Blogger Killtown said...

Great! Now put your money where your mouths are.

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:00, Blogger James B. said...

Please Killtown, please tell me who you would accept as an "independent investigator". You guys believe everyone is involved in the coverup. Every government and professional agency, every major media source in the world outside of neo-nazi newspapers and Pravda, every civil engineer in the world. Even Noam Chomsky is now a neo-con plant. Hell, you guys spend half your time accusing each other of being government shills.

So please tell me, name a single group of people you would accept an investigation from that you would not immediately accuse of corruption, should they produce a result that you do not like.

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:03, Blogger Chad said...

KillTard, I commented on that post of yours. Pretty much the same questions James is asking of you.

Please respond.

I'm dying to know....

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:12, Blogger Killtown said...

I'd be satisfied with a panel who has no conflicts of interest and with one person from the 9/11 truth movement and you guys can choose one person from your "movement".

I figure if this investigations has no closed door non-recorded interviews (like when that happened with our Pres and VP) and no person has a conflict of interest, then most of us Truthers would be satisfied.

So what do you say, do you guys support a real independent investigation? Are you confident there was no conspiracy? Willing to put your $$$ where your mouths are?

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:27, Blogger Alex said...

We don't have a movement, and hence don't require representation. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say that we're quite happy with the group of experts which NIST pulled together to study the collapse. If I had foreseen all this CT nonsense popping up, I would have gladly agreed that a twoofer be a part of that group.

Ofcourse, this twoofer, once exposed to the evidence by the experts he's working with, will have one of two options:

1) Continue to insist bombs brought down the building, even though none of the other members of the panel agree.

At which point the rest of the twoofers will insist that he is the only one who isn't brainwashed and can therefore see the truth, whereas the scientists and experts are all just government shills.

or

2) Realize that the CT movement is right out to lunch, and admit that the findings of the NIST study were accurate.

At which point the rest of the twoofers will accuse him of getting paid off or being a government shill.


Face it man, a new investigation won't prove anything to you losers, no matter who's running it.

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:36, Blogger Killtown said...

Hey, if you guys are too scared to have a 1st time independent 9/11 investigation, then that's ok.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:00, Blogger shawn said...

Hey, if you guys are too scared to have a 1st time independent 9/11 investigation, then that's ok.

It'll come to same conclusion, so I'm not scared.

It'll just be a waste of money.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:01, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Good Job SLC!!
Good Job CHF!!

OBVIOUSLY SLC was created for the sold purpose of getting CHF into time magazine AND IN FACT, CHF is a disinformation agent sent by the Secret Committee of the Foil Hat (SCFH)
IN FACT!!!
If you take the letters of SLC and CHF they do infact spell out the name of this secret orginization QUITE CLEARLY!!
DO THE RESEARCH!!!

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:04, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Killtown,
If you could please talk to Larry, curly or Mo (loose change crew) and have them look into the link between CHF and the SLC that would be appreciated, thanks!!

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:09, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Great! Now put your money where your mouths are.

Great killtown thanks!!
I am ALWAYS open to a new investigation!!!

Well since you have announced "put your money" thenWhat i YOU MUST have a game plan, right?

So where do we send some money to?
Who is on your investigative tesm?
What is your time frame for this investigation?
Do you have EVIDENCE to back up what you are saying?
I mean from the way you have worded it, it does sound like you may have something!!

I am very excited about your response to this!!

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:16, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Hey, if you guys are too scared to have a 1st time independent 9/11 investigation, then that's ok.

Given that MANY independent people have commented on the whole CD theory and COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the Tin Foil Hat Society I would have to say that a FURTHER independent investigation would only reveal the following:

















"Killtown is a douchebag"

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:17, Blogger James B. said...

I'd be satisfied with a panel who has no conflicts of interest

That is precisely my point. Unless you picked a bunch of idiots with no qualifications whatsoever, you would immediately begin attacking them as being tainted with some sort of conflict of interest.

Within a matter of hours we would see the same accusations (true or not, it makes no difference) on hundreds of websites:

Investigator A is a professor at a University that receives large amounts of government grants...

Investigator B owned over 2000 shares of Halliburton stock in 2004

Investigator C went to Yale and was in the Skull & Bones

Investigator D's mother is Jewish!

Investigator E has the same last name as a senior member of the Bush cabinet and the American Free Press says they are cousins!

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:20, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Does anyone care what some juvenile nut named "Killtown" says about anything?

Any pimply little Momma's boy can post the same nonsense he is. And I bet that's just what he is.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:48, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Hey, if you guys are too scared to have a 1st time independent 9/11 investigation, then that's ok.

That might work in highschool, but this is the grown up world KT. Try again.

TAM

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:51, Blogger CHF said...

Killtown,

problem is, you quacks won't accept any investigation that doesn't back up your religious beliefs on 9/11.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

So stop calling for investigations if you won't trust them anyway.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:53, Blogger CHF said...

OBVIOUSLY SLC was created for the sold purpose of getting CHF into time magazine AND IN FACT, CHF is a disinformation agent sent by the Secret Committee of the Foil Hat (SCFH)

Lying Dylan!!!

Fuck, man! You're, like, totally blowing my cover!

First Silverstein and now you? Sheeesh....how on earth can we keep thing whole thing under warps if you guys keep...ummm..."pulling" us down?

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:57, Blogger CHF said...

Killtown,

speaking of putting money where one's mouth is, Roger said a while back that he had $50,000 to spare.

Ask him to fund your new independent investigation. Should be able to enlist some structural engineers for that price.

 
At 22 September, 2006 14:00, Blogger default.xbe said...

I'd be satisfied with a panel who has no conflicts of interest and with one person from the 9/11 truth movement and you guys can choose one person from your "movement".

please give us NAMES, not vague qualifications

i have no doubt that you will begin to invent "conflicts of interest" as soon as said committee begins to disagree with you

 
At 22 September, 2006 15:19, Blogger shawn said...

Roger said a while back that he had $50,000 to spare.

Didn't he also say he was gay recently, even though months ago he called my "back and to the left" a "gay refrain"?

 
At 22 September, 2006 16:54, Blogger Dog Town said...

Hey KKK Clown, why don't you and the rest of your ass...ylum get some "experts" to do this investigation. You don't even need access to top secret stuff! You got the goods man, get on with it! Why,... in chat rooms and blogs, or childlike web pages, like yours? Why?
Because you have no goods! Simple as that. You need this attention, you feed off it ! It's a house of cards mate, pay attention!
The winds will blow! Time mag is another record of your stupidity!
Enjoy infamy!

 
At 22 September, 2006 20:40, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Hey, if you guys are too scared to have a 1st time independent 9/11 investigation, then that's ok.

It'll come to same conclusion, so I'm not scared.


Translation: I'm scared it will not come to the same conclusion.

It'll just be a waste of money.

Translation: Having an investagation into an event which lead to a war that has costed cost $375 billion may cost more then the $15 million spent on the 9/11 commission, or 0.004% of the war on terror, and that would just be a HUGE waste of money.

 
At 22 September, 2006 20:55, Blogger CHF said...

Jack,

you KNOW that you won't accept any investigation that doesn't back up your warped beliefs.

You KNOW that the world's structural engineers and other relevent experts are NOT going to come to your defence.

So what exactly do you think is the point of a new investigation?

I'm still waiting to hear who should be on the investigative team....

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:02, Blogger default.xbe said...

why not stop talking about an investigation adn conduct one

do you really need our approval to get started?

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:13, Blogger CHF said...

I think all this talk of a new investigation is rubbish.

They say they want an investigation but they don't. If they did they'd start one! It's easy to gather up some experts and get their opinions. But the twoofers refuse.

Fact is, they KNOW the experts don't agree with them and they KNOW the experts aren't about to.

As it stands they can claim there hasn't been a REAL investigation.

But suppose they get their wish.

And suppose that investigation reaches the same conclusions as the first one.

What do they do then?

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:21, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, I mean, like I do my part to get the Loose Change Traffic around here.

 
At 22 September, 2006 21:57, Blogger Alex said...

Translation: Having an investagation into an event which lead to a war that has costed cost $375 billion may cost more then the $15 million spent on the 9/11 commission, or 0.004% of the war on terror, and that would just be a HUGE waste of money.


It costs more than $10,000 to build an average car, but I would still consider it a waste if you suggested we spend 50 cents to investigate whether there are gremlins hiding under the hood.

 
At 23 September, 2006 05:02, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

How muck would this "investigation" really cost when you think about what retarded questions the looser's are asking.

EXAMPLE:

LOOSER: INVESTIGATE THIS STORY THAT SAYS THE HIJACKERS WERE FOUND ALIVE!!!

INVESTIGATOR: Let's check Google!!!

1 minute later

INVESTIGATOR: Nope, none of the hijackers were found alive.

 
At 23 September, 2006 07:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

jack jack jack;

Who will be on the list of investigators. Noone with any bias or agenda will be allowed, so this means the following cannot be a part of it.

1. Any government in the world or their representatives (geopolitical agendas)
2. Anyone from the "truth" movement (anti-govt agenda)
3. Anyone from the USG (evil NWO agenda)
4. Anyone who believes the official story (you'll say they are bias)

Doesn't leave a whole lot of people, does it?

I'd like to see your list of who you think should be the investigators for the requested "independent" investigation.

TAM

 
At 23 September, 2006 09:04, Blogger jackhanyes said...

You are all forgetting that no expert could figure out how the towers fell until they recreated a "black box" model that adjusted factors so that the tower would fall. Even NIST and FEMA said the tower falling in such a manner was unlikely. Hell FEMA siad they could figure out how the WTC7 fell and NIST came up with what they called them selves an unlikely cause to the collpase.

But billizon millizion of expert and other folks know why it fell. Why look deeper in to? Let's stonewal it some more like master bush has done.

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:43, Blogger CHF said...

Jeck,

Who. Should. Investigate. 9.11?

Give. Me. Some. Fucking. Names.

 
At 23 September, 2006 16:12, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Shouldn't you be asking why a new investagation is needed instead of who? I mean asking who is like saying "ok, we need a new one, but who will head it?"

 
At 23 September, 2006 16:28, Blogger CHF said...

In my opinion, we DON'T need a new investagation.

But some people seem to think we do need one because a munch of paranoid morons have great difficulty comprehending what structural engineers already understand.

So.....if YOU think we need a new investigation so badly then it's up to YOU to suggest who should conduct one.

So present some damn names already or STFU.

 
At 23 September, 2006 17:16, Blogger jackhanyes said...

But some people seem to think we do need one because a munch of paranoid morons have great difficulty comprehending what structural engineers already understand.

You know, some of the people calling the 9/11 commision a fruad and recommeneding a new investgation are people who co-chaired the 9/11 commision?

Personly, I don't give a flying fart who is on the commission, as long as they don't have a conflict of intrest. I would like to see things looked deeply into the event, aquestions answered, and statments that aren't omited. Also more funding then the Starr invesgation into Clinton, would be helpful.

 
At 23 September, 2006 17:18, Blogger jackhanyes said...

If you want some names, I think micky mouse, donald duck, and the doopy from the seven dorks would make a fine commision.

 
At 23 September, 2006 17:18, Blogger Alex said...

You are all forgetting that no expert could figure out how the towers fell until they recreated a "black box" model that adjusted factors so that the tower would fall.

What the hell is a "black box model" and where exactly did you "learn" that nonsense? Let me guess, Thermate-Man also came up with the "black box model" theory?

 
At 23 September, 2006 17:28, Blogger CHF said...

Well the problem, Jack, is that if the new investigation doesn't come to the conclusions that you want it to you'll immediately call it a fraud.

As James previously posted, your reaction would go something like this:



Investigator A is a professor at a University that receives large amounts of government grants...

Investigator B owned over 2000 shares of Halliburton stock in 2004

Investigator C went to Yale and was in the Skull & Bones

Investigator D's mother is Jewish!

Investigator E has the same last name as a senior member of the Bush cabinet and the American Free Press says they are cousins!


Etc etc.

So why waste the money?

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:35, Blogger jackhanyes said...

What the hell is a "black box model" and where exactly did you "learn" that nonsense?

Mathematical modelling problems are often classified into black box or white box models, according to how much a priori information is available of the system. A black-box model is a system of which there is no a priori information available. A white-box model (also called glass box or clear box) is a system where all necessary information is available. Practically all systems are somewhere between the black-box and white-box models, so this concept only works as an intuitive guide for approach.

Basicly it saying a black box model based on bad assumptions and parameters cannot show anything convincing. Like adjusting the number of bolts in a tuss, reducing the size of trussing and core members, removing heat protection, increasing heating absorption, removing heat sink factors, and mucking around other parameters. Didn't you know that NIST could not build a computer model that cuased the building to fall until they changed factors? Read the NIST report.

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:40, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Well the problem, Jack, is that if the new investigation doesn't come to the conclusions that you want it to you'll immediately call it a fraud.

Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.

First, lets start with the basic. Did the 9/11 commission address all issues related to 9/11? Did it over look important details?

 
At 24 September, 2006 13:13, Blogger CHF said...

Jack,

you CT quacks have continuously ignored or mismissed any pieces of evidence, any expert reports or any witnesses than complicate your theories.

So why would you idiots suddenly change when it comes to the new investigation you all ask for?

 
At 24 September, 2006 17:45, Blogger Alex said...

Like adjusting the number of bolts in a tuss, reducing the size of trussing and core members, removing heat protection, increasing heating absorption, removing heat sink factors, and mucking around other parameters.

Or like adding 50 tons of thermate to the columns?

Didn't you know that NIST could not build a computer model that caused the building to fall until they changed factors?

That's what you're supposed to do when you're working with limited data. We have a rough cause, we have an observed effect, and we have some limited data on the what occurred in the time between. If you plug the data into a computer and don't achieve the observed effect then you are obviously either missing data, or have made an error in your calculations. You need to re-check your data and/or figure out what factors you've missed. Then plug everything back into the computer and see what happens. I'm not at all surprised that this is yet another concept which you have failed to grasp.

 
At 26 September, 2006 19:35, Blogger jackhanyes said...

That's what you're supposed to do when you're working with limited data. We have a rough cause, we have an observed effect, and we have some limited data on the what occurred in the time between. If you plug the data into a computer and don't achieve the observed effect then you are obviously either missing data, or have made an error in your calculations. You need to re-check your data and/or figure out what factors you've missed. Then plug everything back into the computer and see what happens. I'm not at all surprised that this is yet another concept which you have failed to grasp.

Alex, frist, why do you always insist that anyone that disagree with you has some sort of mental deficient? That shows a real lack of maturity. "You don't adgree with me! You're stupid!"

Second, let say you build a computer model with all the data you know. The amount of damage the plane did, the amount of fuel, the size of steel coloumns, the property of the steel, the size of trusses, the size of the fire, and other factor and the tower still remain standing. Assuming all the structure factor are ture and correct, what do you change? The amount of damage and the fire.

This is what NIST did. Guess what? When they maxed out on the size of the fire and damage, the tower would not fall! The next thing they did was reduce the size of the support columns, the number of bolts in the trusses, the fire proofing, and made the fire hotter the it could ever have been! Only then did the tower fall! And then the NIST report said it was very unlikely to have fallen like they model!!

Read the NIST, it's all right there!

And lay off the insults kid.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home