Lord Rahl's stat of the week #2

[lordrahl]

This time I'll touch on something that is taboo to most, 9/11. More specifically, building #7. This building was insured a few weeks before the attack(?) on 9/11 for over 3 billion dollars, but...only in case of terrorism. This building fell with minimum damage, under order of the owner(who just happened to have a demolition squad ready on that day). Here is a recent UK article on the building:

infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc_reported_wtc_7_collapsed_20_min_before_it_fell.htm

For more info check out www.loosechange.com


Thank you for your time.



Rahl

[GalactiKing]

Interesting little fact.

[steelthunder814]

interesting but I feel its more or less conspiracy theory fodder

[Dragon Breath]

troy said:

Interesting little fact.

Its not a fact, its entirely untrue.

www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

[GalactiKing]

Can't say I'm surprised by that either then.

[lordrahl]

arctus said:

troy said:

Interesting little fact.

Its not a fact, its entirely untrue.

www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Wow!! Okay yes the WTC buildings were insured, building 7 was insured only weeks before. I have the tape with 7's owner saying he had it pulled by a demolition crew. All of the pictures shown on that site are stills, and they all are from during the demolition of building 7.

Before you say something is untrue maybe you should actually watch what happened in real time not get info from a site that just shows you stills,and then post their opinions. I know they had a lot of news links to make it seem true, but most of those are reported days later. Again, I recommend downloading "Loose Change" from www.loosechange.com or go to www.video.google.com and look up Terrorstorm.

Rahl

[Dragon Breath]

lordrahl said:

arctus said:

Its not a fact, its entirely untrue.

www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Wow!! Okay yes the WTC buildings were insured, building 7 was insured only weeks before. I have the tape with 7's owner saying he had it pulled by a demolition crew. All of the pictures shown on that site are stills, and they all are from during the demolition of building 7.

Before you say something is untrue maybe you should actually watch what happened in real time not get info from a site that just shows you stills,and then post their opinions. I know they had a lot of news links to make it seem true, but most of those are reported days later. Again, I recommend downloading "Loose Change" from www.loosechange.com or go to www.video.google.com and look up Terrorstorm.

Rahl

Those sites are crap. Their claims have been debunked time and time again.

Here's a full debunk of Loose Change Second Edition
www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Speaking of loose change, it is a cesspool. Have you checked out their Pentagon subforum lately?

Oh, are you aware of this quote from Dylan Avery, one of the creators of Loose Change?

Dylan Avery — “We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That’s the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…. ”

Here's the site from which I pulled the above quote. It includes the footage where he makes the quote as well.

www.debunk911myths.org/

I worked at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Sites like the ones that you link falsely accuse many of those that I worked with at the Pentagon of being "in" on some sort of conspiracy. Frankly, I find this offensive.

I would be happy to share my experiences with you, if that's something that you are interested in.

Can you provide evidence towards even one of your claims?

[offspring515]

I hate to steal Swarm's material, but that last post was powerful. Mad powerful.

[lordrahl]

arctus said:

lordrahl said:

Wow!! Okay yes the WTC buildings were insured, building 7 was insured only weeks before. I have the tape with 7's owner saying he had it pulled by a demolition crew. All of the pictures shown on that site are stills, and they all are from during the demolition of building 7.

Before you say something is untrue maybe you should actually watch what happened in real time not get info from a site that just shows you stills,and then post their opinions. I know they had a lot of news links to make it seem true, but most of those are reported days later. Again, I recommend downloading "Loose Change" from www.loosechange.com or go to www.video.google.com and look up Terrorstorm.

Rahl

Those sites are crap. Their claims have been debunked time and time again.

Here's a full debunk of Loose Change Second Edition
www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Speaking of loose change, it is a cesspool. Have you checked out their Pentagon subforum lately?

Oh, are you aware of this quote from Dylan Avery, one of the creators of Loose Change?

Dylan Avery — “We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That’s the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…. ”

Here's the site from which I pulled the above quote. It includes the footage where he makes the quote as well.

www.debunk911myths.org/

I worked at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Sites like the ones that you link falsely accuse many of those that I worked with at the Pentagon of being "in" on some sort of conspiracy. Frankly, I find this offensive.

I would be happy to share my experiences with you, if that's something that you are interested in.

Can you provide evidence towards even one of your claims?

First your quote. Yep saw it. He admits he made mistakes. I'll admit not every single thing is 100% correct. I recommend it as a film as it is an easy introduction into 9/11. But you are using his quote out of context as he is admitting his mistakes, then tells the viewers other sites were you can get the accurate information he messed up. He also is using his statement to tell people that Loose Change is not the "leader" of the 9/11 truth movement. BTW, the link you put up I keep getting no video messages just to let you know.

On to the Loose Change debunk: Here are a few things from the first 7 minutes. 1st is asking why do you need a 2nd edition, do the truth need to be re written. Well, 2nd edition pulls out some of the things that they had no facts to back up, and I know that's crazy as they're trying to make it more truthful. They should stick to something know matter what. In the case of rewriting the truth, the first eye witness acounts are no longer valid to debunkers, only the the rewritten statements from days and weeks later. Who is rewriting what the truth of what happened? I guess it's Loose Change who pulled out parts to make it more truthful, not the official story which had people change there eyewitness accounts.

No dates given for the opening quotes. Correct, but then again the debunkers don't even give names for who they got their information from, at least you know who Loose Change is quoting.

Operation Northwoods/ 9/11: Okay both are examples of Gov't sponsored terrorism used to sway opinions so policy can be changed, yet the debunk is that the 2 are not related at all nor is there even an attempt to link them. The documentary is about Gov't sponsored terrorism and they show an example that the Gov't has already planned to use this. Debunk claims no one was to die in OP:NW, well if you've read the document people ARE going to die. So a blatant lie by the debunker.

Wow, 2 year old artivle warning about use of planes in terrorism says: "Hijacked Airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass murder." Debunk on this part is: Nice twist of words, but reading the article it talks about airplane laden with poisons. The article does later goes on to talk about this, but the debunker doesn't mention that the delivery system for those weapons is to crash them into populated buildings and areas. So where did Loose Change twist the words? 2 times the article mentioned using planes to crash and kill.

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Loose Change highlights says, Transformation will take a very long time without an epic Pearl Harbor like event. Debunkers: "Stupid to summarize a 90-page document using one sentence out of context" I've read this document BTW. So the debunker does what he just said Loose Change did. Summarizes the document, but with 3 short paragraphs about as long as Loose Change's paragraph they used. These three paragraphs show that they were talking about a transformation in the way information is collected for military use. What the debunker left out is that the segment Loose Change refers to is about the same thing yes, but it is preceded by saying Foreign Allies and Domestic critics would not allow the changes they wanted implemented hence the need for a dramatic Pearl Harbor event to quicken the process.

Debunker then ask what a information tech revolution has to do with 9/11. Well, since the "War on Terror" we have: illegal wiretaps, and under the guise of the Patriot Act; Gov't ability to learn what books you read(Unconstitutional), Who you call(Unconstitutional), Where you go on the internet(Unconstitutional), arrest, searches, seizures, and interogation with out probable cause or ANY evidence at all(again Unconstitutional). These all sound like information gathering to me.

While I could go on and on as I have 2 pages from the fist 7 minutes of the so-called debunk that show the debunker blatantly lying over and over, insulting the Loose Change creators(which is a known Facist scare tactic to get people who watch this a reason to not beleve the people who are being called idiots, because if you call someone an idiot people don't want to be associated with that person), Twisting the words of articles, and giving facts without any credit given by name, date, or other means.

You can believe what you want, and sorry the truth can be offensive. I never said anyone had to believe me. I recommend researching both sides to everyone. If you find it necessary I could work on showing you how the debunking you believe in is a play on words, lies, and misinformation.

Thank you for commenting as I always like to hear what other people think on issues.


Rahl

[offspring515]

Wouldn't reading the stuff you posted, and then reading the stuff that another person posted against it be reading both sides?

[lordrahl]

offspring515 said:

Wouldn't reading the stuff you posted, and then reading the stuff that another person posted against it be reading both sides?

I guess you could look at it that way Offspring. I'd just prefer this didn't become an all out argument on the site. We obviously have different opinions on this matter, and I've seen people go off on each other before. I actually thought of just PM'ing Arctus on this, but decided to post it instead. I wanted to show that yes I've seen the same things he has, and show why it's not debunking anything IMO.

I just recommend that if you are interested in this more to look it up yourself, as was my point in the beginning, by giving sites that you can watch of few movies. If you are interested you can research more if you're not I'm not going to call you names. I don't call things "crap" or "cesspools" because I don't share the same beliefs.


Rahl

[Thad Killian]

I wouldn't put it past them...the US government has always set themselves up for these lil' things...what else could try to spurn the economy than going into war? What else could get the country behind a war more than the Twin Towers get blasted...time and time again, the government has looked the other way on instances like this...another excample would be Pear Harbor in 1941...why would the carriers not be in dock or accompanied by escorts? First time EVER to that point, that they were by themselves...

not trying to start anything...I love this country and would gladly put my life down to defend it's soil but the current administration is losted by lying so much that they even forgotten which line of BS they're trying to pull over our eyes next...

[dukedave]

Boot Offspring
Keep Rahl

Oops wrong thread.

[blueraider2]

hi jacker.

[bmurderh8s]

lordrahl said:

arctus said:

Debunker then ask what a information tech revolution has to do with 9/11. Well, since the "War on Terror" we have: illegal wiretaps, and under the guise of the Patriot Act; Gov't ability to learn what books you read(Unconstitutional), Who you call(Unconstitutional), Where you go on the internet(Unconstitutional), arrest, searches, seizures, and interogation with out probable cause or ANY evidence at all(again Unconstitutional). These all sound like information gathering to me.

Everything about the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. They are slowly robbing us of our rights and using Terrorism as the means to the end.

I don't see how giving up the rights our country was founded upon is going to help us with this "war". We are American's and certainly our forefathers would tell us to never compromise those rights for any reason. It's what keeps us free. Letting the Government slowly take these rights away to fight a war is like opening Pandora's box. Where does it end?!

[GalactiKing]

I sense this thread is going to get locked.

[Dragon Breath]

lordrahl said:

lots of words

That was a bunch of typing Rahl, yet you forgot to provide any evidence towards the claims you made in the first two posts of this thread.

First your quote. Yep saw it. He admits he made mistakes. I'll admit not every single thing is 100% correct. I recommend it as a film as it is an easy introduction into 9/11. But you are using his quote out of context as he is admitting his mistakes, then tells the viewers other sites were you can get the accurate information he messed up. He also is using his statement to tell people that Loose Change is not the "leader" of the 9/11 truth movement. BTW, the link you put up I keep getting no video messages just to let you know.

Why do you provide links to sites that acknowlegde that they lie about 9/11?

You should spend some time brushing up on Northwoods. You got that more wrong than the Silverstein quote. Pretty much any troofer I deal with accepts the fact that Northwoods would have resulted in simulated deaths, not the actual murder of innocent U.S. victims. The debate usually revolves areound the debunkers demonstrating the fact that the U.S. Government rejected the plan; and the troofers hanging on the fact that such a plan was even conceived. And of course the whole discussion has zero to do with 9/11.

I spend a fair amount of time on other boards debunking aspects of 9/11. I have also worked with and provided my first hand experiences to some of the leading researchers of the 9/11 troof movement. I've shared my first hand knowledge of the Pentagon and its immediate surroundings to truth movement reasearchers to aid them in assessing their theories.

Your comment about Silverstein's demolition crew is laughable.
Please do you yourself a favor and get yourself up to speed on the beliefs of the movement that you are supposedly a part of.

Trust me, the last thing that I want to do is spend time on a futuristic dice wrestling forum correcting falsehoods coming from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that is having difficutly grasping the falsehoods of the movement that he is a part of. I'd much rather relax while I am here.

I'm still waiting on real evidence for your earlier claims. PM is fine. Actually, I think PM is more appropriate, as we both have less than 100 posts and have probably disrupted the board enough with this nonsense.

What's your screen name on the LC forums?

[Trent Lawless]

I'm fairly liberal, as most here know. And George Bush is no friend of mine.

But I have yet to see anything in the conspiracy theories that convinces me.

Although I'll keep an open mind.

[Dragon Breath]

markcpc said:

I'm fairly liberal, as most here know. And George Bush is no friend of mine.

But I have yet to see anything in the conspiracy theories that convinces me.

Although I'll keep an open mind.

For what its worth, I think the current administration is arguably the worst one that the U.S. has ever had.

[GalactiKing]

You are obviously not familiar with a little president we had in 1921 named Warren G. Harding. Nothing the Bush administration has done comes close to matching that level of incompetence.