• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
geggy said:
You're right about bush admin using sept 11 as one of the justifications to invade Iraq to be able to reach their agenda. (1) But the question here is would they still had invaded iraq if the sept 11 attacks were never to happen? Long before sept 11, bush and friends were overly obsessed with overthrowing the saddam regime. In the year before the attacks, PNAC called for a new pearl harbor as a pretext to invade the middle east and they got what they needed on sept 11. (2) The question is was it a mere coincidence that the attack occured at the time the bush admin had been reinstated in the white house and regained mighty powers after being ousted by clinton or were they already aware that a new pearl harbor was coming and did nothing to prevent it because they needed a pretext to invade the middle east? (3) Moreover, how do you explain the reason for the security standdown on that day?
Click to expand...
(Numbers, once again, mine.)

I know this may come as a complete and utter surprise to you, considering your apparent inability to pay attention, but...

Questions are not evidence!
 
I go to work and you guys add four pages WTF!

XRaye, welcome.

From what I've read here and on the LC forum, you seem pretty resonable. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Someone brought it up earlier, and I think it would be a good idea to produce a video debunking many CT claims. Since this seems to be the most effective way to get a message out on the internet.
 
geggy said:
You're right about bush admin using sept 11 as one of the justifications to invade Iraq to be able to reach their agenda. But the question here is would they still had invaded iraq if the sept 11 attacks were never to happen? Long before sept 11, bush and friends were overly obsessed with overthrowing the saddam regime. In the year before the attacks, PNAC called for a new pearl harbor as a pretext to invade the middle east and they got what they needed on sept 11. The question is was it a mere coincidence that the attack occured at the time the bush admin had been reinstated in the white house and regained mighty powers after being ousted by clinton or were they already aware that a new pearl harbor was coming and did nothing to prevent it because they needed a pretext to invade the middle east? Moreover, how do you explain the reason for the security standdown on that day?
Click to expand...

These are all assertions. But you can't connect possible motives with events without proof. It seems to me you are trying to put the cart before the cattle. These are possibilities, but before one can make it a fact, one must be able to corroborate with proof.

But I'm glad to see you're moving away from the more sci-fi aspects of the CT.

Also, geggy, by re-reading Cleland's comments, I now can see how one can interpret them in the way you have. I therefore retract my comment I made about you not reading carefully. I can see how Cleland comments can be misleadingly implying that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attack, especially to someone who already asserts that it is so. But I'm not too sure he meant that Bush knew exactly about the 9/11 plot, but that he does have knowledge about the events he is not willing to show (perhaps Saudi fundings).

I apologize for my rudeness, I may have been too quick myself to read the comment. My mistake.:o
 
I wasn't even in, how can I be outed?
Click to expand...

PLEASE tell me that was an intentional seinfeld reference!! PLEASE!!

ANYWAYS, as it seems you all enjoy watching the fun over at the loose change forums, i wasted a few hours there a couple days ago:

s15 DOT invisionfree DOT com/Loose_Change_Forum/

AND THEN,

index.php?showtopic=3557&st=180

(sorry for the mutilated URL... you know, 15 post rule, hehe)

the posts start toward the lower half of that page, and then continue till the end. i've been tempted to post more, but i need to have serious time to keep up with all their crazy stuff, and i need to work up the patience to deal with posters, like, uh, i dunno... jenabell, who must make some of the worst arguments i've ever seen in my life...

BTW, would Pablo, quasi-sapien or leftysergeant happen to post/read here?

take care all,
anthony.
 
Last edited:
vid idea I had today
P and T style (interviews) without the slander as bad...

How about get the same video.
Each time a claim is made. Pause it. Add voice over narration (for now, gravy's stuff written in the docco). UnPause.

Repeat till end of movie.

Would be long but the best way to refute it. Anyone who has seen the original would get their arguements completely wiped at the points they might think are relevant. Um...I hope that makes sense.
Its something that would only cost time using the right software. A rational sane explanation and revealing of facts for each claim on the video. Let them speak and then show how they are wrong.

I could do it but kinda busy for the moment.

edit: The more I think of it, the more I want to do it....but I dont want to start something someone with the proper skills could do better.
 
Last edited:
I think yours is a generalization not based in fairness. I don't know of too many "skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown." Certainly not on these boards. What I do see here, if I may say so, is a high level of rigorous thinking. Frankly, I'll suggest there's no such animal as a "skeptic." Skepticism is a frame of mind. And it comes in various degrees, often depending on the topic.

You see, there are people today who are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story, and people who are "skeptical" of the whole or parts of the various conspiracy theories which are being discussed. The difference is that there is a very modest default position: the perfectly logical and reasonable official story. I, nor others I'm aware of, are, to use your words, "attached to this point of view" any more than I'm attached to the view that there are only two Beatles left alive; it's pretty much common sense. Rather, it is up to the alternate theorist(s) to present a case, if they feel they have one, for the quite remarkable theories they're floating. Allegations on a par with the possibility John and George are breathing at the moment. However, so far, they've done next to nothing, except engage in conjecture and float allegations.

So it's not, as you put it, "the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attachment to one's point of view." You're certainly welcome to name or list the "facts" presented by the CTers. The reason I haven't looked at them, much less refused, is because I have yet to see any.
Click to expand...


So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.

One may work under the paradigm that the government doesn't care about you, that politicians tend to lie, and that there's a lot going on behind the scenes besides what we're fed from Fox News. With that premise it may be just as logical and reasonable to believe the government screwed us over instead of a small terrorist group who's leader has alledged connections with the CIA. Thus the difference between the "skeptic" and the "CT" is more a matter of world view than of how one thinks.

I don't actually believe that's the whole difference, but I do believe that it's a part of it. I also think that one who identifies with the term "skeptic" has some history of going through the questioning process. Most likely a labled skeptic has some training in epistomoligical scrutiny. Thus one who's been the butt of a joke, a sheep led astray, doesn't buy into the same rouse twice and therefor applies thier powers of discernment towards anything suspicious.

Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11 despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group, that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).

I personally think, therefor, that there are skeptics on both sides. I also think that there are numerous non skeptics (sheep) on both sides of the issue. I would actually go so far as to claim that a real skeptic is one who is able to transcend thier own premise of what is logical and reasonable and is willing to look skeptically at both sides, or rather entertain within thier minds the possibility of an alternate reality besides thier own.
 
dubfan said:
Looks like I was mistaken before.

Labour MP Meacher is going to screen it for both Houses of the UK Parliament. Presumably all the Ministers will see it (or have a chance to). It's not just a private screening with Marcher.
Click to expand...

Oh ****
I think I see an e-mail campaign starting. any UK residents or others who are particularly keen for LC2E not to have he stamp of approval from the UK Parliament should contact Mr Meacher through his assistant at massonm@parliament.uk
I'll also be writing to my MP to point out just how bad this will make British democracy look.
 
Unfortunately, there's little or no point in emailing an MP who does not represent you directly. I have done so anyway, and I have also used the http://www.writetothem.com to email my local MP as well.
Best case scenario: I have innoculated him against this rubbish and he may even pass the URL oif Gravy's critique along to other MPS as well.

I encourage all UK JREF members to write emails to their own local MPs as well.
 
atarian said:
Unfortunately, there's little or no point in emailing an MP who does not represent you directly.
Click to expand...
my parents live in his constituency, so Ill get them to forward my letter. writing to your own MP is a great idea as well.
 
A petition was compiled by the Scholars For 9/11 Truth asking for the release of documents, video and films, and physical evidence in relation to the events of 9/11.

thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1147427418

This petition would bring invaluable information to public attention and I'm gussing y'all would be interested in having access to such evidence.
 
Xraye said:
A petition was compiled by the Scholars For 9/11 Truth asking for the release of documents, video and films, and physical evidence in relation to the events of 9/11.

thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1147427418

This petition would bring invaluable information to public attention and I'm gussing y'all would be interested in having access to such evidence.
Click to expand...

Of course we would Xraye...and thank you for bringing that to our attention. The question on many of our minds, though, is -- why bother? The CTs won't believe it in any case. Someone here (wish I could remember who) put this well when he said that when debating a CT, it's best to first ask them what sort of evidence or source they *will* accept, and then go from there. Saves a lot of time.
 
geggy said:
as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...
Click to expand...

Geggy. Even if that were true, it pretty much INVALIDATES the idea of a controlled demolition, doesn't it ?
 
Xraye said:
So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.
Click to expand...

That's not it at all, Xraye. The default position is where the evidence lies. We have video records of planes flying into the WTC, structural engineers that show that both towers and the WTC 7 collapsed as a result of that damage, and similar evidence for the attack on the pentagon, plus evidence that Al-Qaeda members participated, motive, and a claim of responsability.

I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Would you ?
 
Xraye said:
A petition was compiled by the Scholars For 9/11 Truth asking for the release of documents, video and films, and physical evidence in relation to the events of 9/11.

thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1147427418

This petition would bring invaluable information to public attention and I'm gussing y'all would be interested in having access to such evidence.
Click to expand...

I have to say, if this information was being used to start a criminal case or was a threat to national security, I wouldn't really be interested. Other than a few video tapes of the pentagon site, what is left to be released? We have plenty of information, video footage, and audio footage from the WTC attacks and we still have plenty of people claiming that it was a conspiracy.

The missing footage of the pentagon attack may prove that it was a commercial airliner that hit the pentagon, but that still won't change any of the CTers opinions. This is because the CT of a missile hitting the Pentagon makes no sense in the first place. In fact all of the CTs are overly wild and speculative. Why dump a load of passengers off in Cleveland if you're already killing thousands? Why slam a commercial airliner into the WTC if you're going to use explosives to demolish them? Why use a missile to strike the Pentagon if you're already flying planes into the WTC? In fact, can a long range missile even strike a building from that angle at such low altitude?

None of their theories make any sense at all. That's why talking sense to the majority of them fails over and over again. There are some people sitting on the fence that you can hope to set straight, but we don't need surveillance tapes to do so, just common sense. Either way, more evidence will simply allow the CTers to dream up even wilder scenarios where those wacky Jews and those zany Globalist/Illuminati/Government folks team up to try and control the world, initially have resounding success, followed by failure after failure.
 
Xraye said:
So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The reason we support the official explanation is that it is supported by the overwhelming majority (if not every single one) of experts in the field - structural engineers, fire engineers, civil engineers. The evidence has been studied by both major political parties as well as independent experts. The findings have been published. And it has been shown that al Qaeda had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off the attacks. The fact that they admitted to it is but a tiny part of the overall picture, as terror groups often claim responsibility for things they didn't do.

Compare/contrast to the CT position. Non-experts in the fields being scrutinized, whose entire theory seems to be the study of grainy, compressed nth-generation videos they saw on youtube or google video.
 
Pardalis said:
These are all assertions. But you can't connect possible motives with events without proof. It seems to me you are trying to put the cart before the cattle. These are possibilities, but before one can make it a fact, one must be able to corroborate with proof.

But I'm glad to see you're moving away from the more sci-fi aspects of the CT.

Also, geggy, by re-reading Cleland's comments, I now can see how one can interpret them in the way you have. I therefore retract my comment I made about you not reading carefully. I can see how Cleland comments can be misleadingly implying that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attack, especially to someone who already asserts that it is so. But I'm not too sure he meant that Bush knew exactly about the 9/11 plot, but that he does have knowledge about the events he is not willing to show (perhaps Saudi fundings).

I apologize for my rudeness, I may have been too quick myself to read the comment. My mistake.:o
Click to expand...

I don't care for your rudeness, it doesn't really affect me at all. In fact it's quite amusing, keep it coming.

You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I consider these information that were either not addressed or manipulated in the official report as evidence (or clues, whichever you want to call it) to back up my questions to seek the real truth. I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

True Cleland blamed the bush admin for gross incompetence as he has pointed out how much they knew what was coming and didnt do anything to prevent it but there are also other info that he didn't point out which contradicts the incompetent theory.

Blah I hope I'm making sense here...I haven't had my usualy cup of coffee this morning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom