• 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:
Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.
Click to expand...




...Oh yeah. You have a really accurate impression of this forum. Really.

Why don't you peruse the Politics subforum and repost that? See how far that gets you.
 
geggy said:
Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.
Click to expand...


To quote Phil:

"If ya gotta 'splain 'em, they don't go in the act, kid."
 
So geggy, will you at least answer one of my previous questions?

- How does a fake collapse from the top is supposed to work?

- What constitutes a coincidence to you (in the large sense)

Pick one.
 
Gravy said:
It's good advice. I did say that the debate would be limited to the claims made in "Loose Change." I'm not prepared to get into a debate about the Rothschilds or the Black Pope.
Click to expand...

You can always state that the debate is limited to the field of Loose Change. However, woos have a tendency to claim you're avoiding the issue when you don't answer why Colombus named his ship the Santa Maria rather than the Santa Anna. Another favorite is jumping ship midtopic, going from flight 93 to the volcano in the WTC. The problem is, I don't even think most of them realize what they're doing, they're so unfamiliar with a traditional debate format that they're unable to understand concepts like staying on topic, providing facts, avoiding fallacies, etc...
 
Gravy said:
I sent Dylan Avery an email today:
Click to expand...
"charliebean" posted your challenge on the LC forum, and "DemolitionCrew" responded:
DemolitionCrew said:
Besides being someone NEW, WHO ARE YOU DUDE?

I ask that to say...what would Dylan or any member from the LC Crew have to gain by debating you?????

So what it would be held in NYC and the reference to it being the media capital of the world...in my opinion that only means the tabloid capital of the world. Considering the fact that we have NO REAL MEDIA anymore (topic for a different thread).

So who are you and why would this debate draw such attention???? What is there to gain from LC's perspective???

More importantly, are you that ignorant and one track in your thinking that you want to debate something you have followed for on a few weeks?

Have you event read the Kean Whitewash report?

Are you that hell bent on not finding out what really happened that day?

I would think that considering we are talking about 3,000 people getting killed that would be something ALL would want to challenge the accounts of the events of 9/11.

LC2 doesn't provide for what did happen...it questions the logic of the official story, tears it to shreads and along the way gives alternative explanations for what may have happened. These explanations are not conclusive...they all call in the end for a real investigation.

Have you gone through the site? Did you see the mounds of research? Have you taken the time to do your own homework? Well of course you haven't...you are too busy worried about disproving people who actually have your back. People who are actually (no matter what) are going to continue to fight on your behalf to make sure we are diefinitively made aware of the true perpetrators and those people are brought to justice.

Did you realize that you are also asking to debate people who want to make sure these monsters that committed these acts never do it again?

You might want to answer these questions then get a reality check my friend.

I would think it would only benefit LC to debate someone from the Kean coverup commision or some of the top Whitehouse officials. I can think of no better person than Paul Wolfowitcz but we know he wouldn't put himself in that position (better plead the fifth Paul)!!!!
Click to expand...
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4032&view=findpost&p=4474002
 
Pardalis said:
I've just listened to the radio show featuring Dylan Avery that was posted, and all I got to say is wow, this guy doesn't know what mess he's getting himself in!

Sooner or later, Avery is going to have a law suit on his hands. What he's doing, and what his films are doing, are dangerously close to diffamation of character, at least, from my view. Were not talking about a non-consequential mistake due to youthfull immaturity anymore, we're talking about serious criminal lawsuits. I wonder how long it's going to take for the other most high-profiled CTs to get their asses sued. You can't hide behind the first amendment forever, these guys are actually accusing people of corruption and mass murder. You can't hide behind the "I was just asking questions" rhethoric, some day you have to take responsability for what you say and face the consequences.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he is under the impression that because he is not really profiting from it (wink, wink) that he is immune to charges of slander/libel (depending on whether you consider Loose Change "published" or not).

That would be a mistaken impression.
 
^varg said:
OH OH OH!

this is getting even more insane...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4245

enjoy :)
Click to expand...

Oh... My... Dog...

For those of you who missed out on this link:

Badmachine said:
It should be noted that as the build up to the Iraq war was underway, this sniper at one point during his several week rampage in the Wash. DC area had the following statistics:

9: Total killed
11: Total hit
1: Miss

(I.e.: 9/11/01)

Supernatural?

Nah.

CIA psych job on Washington DC and the U.S. population during a pre-war build-up?

Who knows.

Muhammed: Sniper case reeks of CIA

Judge: Whatever

According to a report on ABC affiliate WJLA at 6pm ET, a CIA employee will be sitting on the jury. Alleged DC Beltway sniper John Muhammed said that "there were more CIA involved this case than water in the ocean." The judge overruled Muhammed and the friendly courthouse reporter Alisa Parenti assured the audience that there of course was no CIA involvement.

http://www.total411.info/
Click to expand...

Its like some twisted game. "I was driving to work the other day and my mileage went to 91101! The CIA must have tampered with my car!! Only a few days ago it said 90210!! Shannon Daugherty must have tampered with my car!!"
 
dubfan said:
If I were Debra Burlingame I'd be pretty pissed off. Dylan pretty much accuses her husband Charles of being the pilot of the 757 that hit the Pentagon. He also misstates Burlingame's service record.

Oh wait, except a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. So what was Burlingame's role in this again? Another one of those baffling cases where one conspiracy "fact" doesn't quite seem to fit in with the larger conspiracy narrative.
Click to expand...

There's a larger conspiracy narrative?!? ;)
 
geggy said:
No...the "power of christ" reference was from family guy. It's just funnier when peter griffin said it. It was in the episode which chris started speaking ebonic hip hop language and peter thought he had been possessed, so he pulled over his car to start cranking up biblical references and spray holy water on chris to get rid of the blackness in him. Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.
Click to expand...

Oh, right... The Exorcist copied from Family Guy, and the producers covered up the fact by cleverly releasing the movie thirty years earlier.

ETA: By the way, it's not really that funny when you say it. Sort of creepy, actually. Just thought I'd mention it.
 
geggy said:
No...the "power of christ" reference was from family guy. It's just funnier when peter griffin said it. It was in the episode which chris started speaking ebonic hip hop language and peter thought he had been possessed, so he pulled over his car to start cranking up biblical references and spray holy water on chris to get rid of the blackness in him. Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.
Click to expand...
This is actually a pretty good analogy, if you think about it. Both Peter and geggy have a paranoid fear of a mind-controlling phantom, and call upon deluded techniques based on fanatical beliefs to try to purge it.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Insight into 9/11 CT psychological motivation:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3865&view=findpost&p=4310577
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what Lee Harris calls a "fantasy ideology" -- people buy into it because it makes them a player in a larger drama. He wrote an interesting article for Policy Review that makes the case that this is the basic dynamic behind many extremist movements, including Al Qaeda.

My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.

My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.

What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.

And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Link to the complete article: http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html
 
Polaris said:
Not to mention the torpedo technology dropped by the Japanese planes into Pearl Harbor didn't exist until the Japs invented an airborne torpedo that could be dropped into low-draft water. How exactly was FDR supposed to know an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming when the weapons needed to actually sink the moored ships weren't battle-tested UNTIL Pearl Harbor? (If I remember correctly, 16" battleship shells were converted into aerial bombs for use against the Pacific Fleet as well).
Click to expand...

The picky historian is back,

To be accurate the technology did exist well before Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had only added wooden fins to their torpedoes for the attack. Pearl Harbor was based on the similar British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940, which proved the viability of shallow water torpedo attacks. To me, the important fact to remember is the nature of the navy leaders of virtually every nation at the time, they still believed in the big gun platform, the battleship, as the primary capital ship. There were few proponents of carrier warfare by 1941 (including Nagumo, leader of the Japanese strike force). Even fewer believed it would be possible to strike a base such as Pearl Harbor with any effectiveness. Now we could believe this was a conspiracy or we could simply believe that the admirals were not very forward thinkers, as history has so often proven (i.e the Allied use of tanks in 1940 was straight out of WWI, conspiracy or stupidity?).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom