A viewer guide to Loose Change 2

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

I recommend this guide for all those who are interested in the truth:

http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

CTS

kbo234 · Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject:

Ignore this person.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Kbo234 writes:

Justin · Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject:

CTS

Please read the transcript of Richard Grove on this thread

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2035&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=0

as I have today and then tell me you have absolutely NO doubts about the official 9/11 story. When you add up the physical and visible evidence of the WTC and the Pentagon along with the testimonies of business people like Richard Grove, firefighters, airline pilots, scientists and other professionals, there can be only one answer......the official story of 9/11 is in doubt and there must be a new independent inquiry. There are well over 300 smoking guns or serious doubts to do with the official 9/11 story and for you, CTS, to continue to hold your position of having no doubts at all with the official story, you have to completely prove us wrong on every single doubt we have.

So, my friend, when you have read what Richard Grove has to say, will you please tell us straight that you have absolutely NO doubts at all with the official 9/11 story....or that you have some doubts which means we can have some reasonable and meaningful debate and discussion with you.

Pikey · Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject:

Re: CTS ..................he/she's/they're back!

Justin states:-

kbo234 · Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:28 am Post subject:

orestes · Moderate Poster Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 113

“Loose Change 2nd Edition” begins with a dedication.

I hope you’ll judge for yourself how the video portrays the victims of 9/11.

This is how the guide opens. With an insult. And it continues that way.
For example: " 01:14:09,
First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center in July, 2001.
I wonder if there’s any chance that this would be coming up if his name was “Larry Jones.” " That's that then. Jews never commit crimes, and anyone who says they do is an anti-Smite.

"After September 11th, Silverstein demanded $7.2 billion dollars form his insurers,
“Demanded?” Yes, I hear he threatened to “pull” the chairs out from under them if they didn’t comply. Presumably humour.

Claiming that each plane counted as a separate act of terrorism.
A sound business decision.
"
There is nothing to be said to this. Nothing rests on the interpretation of the detail of Silverstein's claim.

"What justification do we have for bombing Afghanistan?
The Taliban admitted to harboring Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, who was wanted by the U.S. for the embassy bombings.
Foreign affairs for the ignorant. To use this uncritically speaks volumes for the guy's sophistication.

01:12:17
Oh, that's right. The Bin Laden confession tape. Assumption that we would not have invaded Afghanistan without that tape."
This is not correct, that assumption was not being made. The claim ismade that the tape was used to justify the bombing. This is true.

Here he says:

"
Indeed. After all, not even the official autopsy for Flight 77 lists the hijackers,

Nor does it list the two-year-old on that flight, whose remains were not identified. The report you refer to is of the body parts and tissue samples positively identified by the pathologists. DNA analysis of the hijacker’s remains could not be done because that requires a reference sample. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the 19 Arab men identified by the FBI did board and take control of the flights.
The two sources he gives do not justify what he says. The first one is just a link to a letter confirming the delivery of the informartion that these were the 58 people identified as being on the flight. So what? Well, the second one is a link to the 911 myths site itself (er, isn't that what we're reading?). This site says that it was only the people who were identified who were on the list. Ah! They couldn't get any DNA samples from the hijackers! But that's funny, because he links to Thompson's terror timeline which documents an extraordinarily detailed amount of evidence about the hijackers whereabouts and the FBI's contact. But they couldn't find a DNA sample?

Please also consider that this person, by his own admission in this essay, turns up to events handing out flyers with random comments from people on forums (not the makers of loose change) and incites them to 'let the loose change people know what you think of them', ie the makers of loose change. Is this a person you trust?

Also consider that he claims cell phone calls were common before 9/11 based on one example of such a call. Then, merely three sentences later he justifies the press reports that it was now possible to use cell phones in aircraft by saying 'yes, because, it became reliable and cost-effective and the demand was there'. Uh. 'Reliable' vs 'Common'. If it was common, doesn't that mean using them was reliable? And if it became cost-effective wouldn't it mean that there was new technology? But why would they need new technology if it was already 'common'? Unless he means it became cost-effective because the phone companies changed their charge? Rolling Eyes

There may be some valuable information in this esssay but I for one will not read it. It is shameful and abusive and written by a childish man. The majority of it is insults, not arguments.

prole art threat

madthumbs · Minor Poster Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 27

Abandoned Ego · Moderate Poster Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 288

Just a quick thought for all those involved in this 'discussion' with CTS.

From a bigger perspective, I can only conclude that CTS is here to make the movement look good, given the clear lack of any real reasoning in CTS's arguments. Therefore, he is actually a sheep in wolfs clothing.

Am I right CTS ? Laughing

flamesong · Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject:

I have to agree!

Anybody who comes on here without much of an argument can only make the 9/11 look better to the casual visitor.

But does that mean that we should stick our fingers in our ears and shout, 'nuuuh-nuuuh-nuh-nuuuh-nuh - can't hear you!' to anybody who presents evidence we don't like very much because it simply doesn't suit our cause.

Let's just say for example that in the unlikely event that conclusive independent proof that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon did emerge (possible but unlikely, granted), denying it does not embrace the objectivity of seeking the truth.

You can't seek the truth if you have programmed yourself as to what the truth is. We are the six blind men describing an elephant so long as the truth is hidden. None of us is right and none of us is wrong.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Justin writes:

dry kleaner · Minor Poster Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 86

John White · Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:36 am Post subject:

Justin · Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:56 am Post subject:

CTS

So, you are telling me you see nothing at all with which to question the official 9/11 story. If that is the case, you, like George Galloway, are a complete and utter fool! At best you are lacking in commonsense. I have talked to eyewitnesses, professional pilots and disaster managers and they tell me that they have very real problems with what the U.S. government says happened on that day. But best of all, it's just plain old commonsense - by simply looking at the visible damage at the Pentagon and the speed of collapse of 1, 2 & 7, this is what tells any sane and reasonably intelligent person that something is very wrong with the official story. You cannot change the Laws of Physics for just one day.

I for one will not be wasting any more time or effort with you. As I said before, you are either a fool, in which case I pity you, or you have another agenda in which case you should be ashamed of yourself.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Pikey wrote:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Pikey

PS I meant to add what I've said before - that the mainstream of scientists and engineers, not just in the US but in the whole world, believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by a gravity-led collapse. Personally, I would rather believe people who know what they are talking about, especially structural engineers.

The report on WTC 7 is not out yet, but, if you look at the debunking sites you will find there plenty of evidence that WTC7 was badly damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers and from fire and was expected to collapse. There are records of the conversations between fire fighters discussing the state of the building and deciding to withdraw from the building to prevent further loss of life.

CTS

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

John White states that:

blackcat · Validated Poster Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 2376

Conspiracttheorysceptic

You are not what your label describes you as - you are in fact a conspiracytheorycoward. If you believe the official version you are either a liar or an idiot. There is no middle ground. You do not seem to be an idiot so you must be a liar and an evil individual as a consequence. You are the one who believes in the most ludicrous "theories" put forward as fact by the powerful people who control the media and the government. You are therefore the Conspiracy Theorist. Why are you here?? What do you hope to achieve by talking gibberish to people who have discovered the truth about 9/11 and the enormity of the treacherous behaviour of the American authorities? You have nothing to say - we can all read your kind of drivel in the mainstream media designed to keep us in the dark. For *'s sake take your propaganda somewhere else or say something worthwhile!!

John White · Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject:

No CTS, I am not saying I consider Loose Change to be "garbage": if you read my post more carefully, that is made clear

What I am saying is that truth is a far more elusive quality than simply comparing a film to a website and picking a favourite

I also made clear that Loose change representated an attempt to construct a more credible estimation of the truth than the officialy provided information

following on from this, I further expressed than anyone who considered Loose Change to be cast iron and unquestionable was a fool

However, I made exactly the same observation about the debunk site

About which you said:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Kbo234 wrote:

kbo234 · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject:

Pikey · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject:

CTS,

Thanx for looking at that video link. Have you read David Ray Griffin's outstanding book "The New Pearl Harbour" yet? When you have (I did suggest this to you about a month ago!), let us know what you make of that.

No high rise steel frame building had ever collapsed on its footprint prior to 911 and many of those that have been severely damaged (re: Madrid Tower fire) remained standing. Remember no plane hit WTC7 and there was only a small fire in WTC7. The sprinkler system and the NYFD had all morning and afternoon to put the fire out.it! Silverstein gave orders to the NYFD to "pull it".

You have been accused of being a coward on here. How us meeting you CTS in person? Where do you live? Suggest a time and a meeting venue and then we can check you out!

Peace & truth

blackcat · Validated Poster Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 2376

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject:

CTS,

paul wright · Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:

I used to furiously argue with the likes of CTS
Now I just feel sorry for them having to adopt that self-denying supine enter-my-rear position where they are dependent on overtrained and over-specialised experts to tell them what's real and what isn't
Any person with a slight observational ability and an iota of commonsense can see what went down with the demolition of the towers
Anybody with a sense of his or her own power or knowledge of how things are doesn't need some bottle-fed teat-denied expert to risk their career and pension coming out against the official line
Look what's happened to those who counter the official line down through history. They all laughed at....Giordano Bruno - burnt him at the stake
Foe god sake, CTS, give up with the whimpering simpering pathos, and get a life that belongs to you and you alone

There - without a single * Asterisk, JHR, does that please you Very Happy

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Andrew Johnson wrote:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

blackcat wrote:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Pikey wrote:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Kbo234 wrote:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3