• 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 - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact is that there is a lot of frustration here as well, mainly because anyone who goes over to LC forum and tries to make legitimate points is immediately either banned, or is attacked to the point where they say something that gets them banned. As well, the mods over there PURPOSELY alter links posted by 9/11 debunkers, so visitors over there never get to see our side of the arguments.

As well, I agree that the general public needs to see from what perspective, and from what motives, the creators of such an Influencial movie as LC are coming from. If that means exposing their own character assassination (MarkyX video, for the most part is simply playing audio and video that that group recorded themselves.), then so be it.
 
Last edited:
I take it that that's a 'yes' to my question "do you really expect the discussion to improve as a result of this character assassination?". Oh dear. I have nothing more to say to this :jaw-dropp

If "character assassination" brings more people into the discussion that weren't there before, then isn't that an improvement?

It would be one thing if character assassination was all there was. Their arguements have already been dismantled, pretty much sentence by sentence, in addition to all the discourse at SLC and 911myths. That is already there, and in the end, that is the meat of the matter.

What MarkyX is doing is bringing more people to the table to eat. And they come hungry.
 
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your explanation.

It means that if the 911 deniers get enough flak from videos like this, they will learn to rein in their little cutsey quips that make their fellow deniers laugh, but insult the victims of that day.

Examples:

'People are secondary' - Dylan Avery

This means that there is a massive gap in the story he has come up with and rather than answer it, he tries to minimize it with this comment. It is an insult to those who died on the planes. Bad behavior.

'I would have beat the hijackers to death with my luggage' -Fetzer

This is an insult to all the victims on the planes, and an insult to all those who have ever been victims of hijackings prior to 911. Why didn't anyone beat DB Cooper to death with their luggage? Fetzer is accusing all the passengers of cowardice with monday morning Qarterbacking.

"The so-called passengers were likely government employees" (paraphrased and I forget by who, the rich guy)

Come ON Brumsen. Is this what you want your movement to be telling people?

The fact that these comments were made shows that there is a human disconnect on the part of the 911 deniers. The deniers already have a host of problems with entanglements with neo-nazis and anti-semites that they have refused to purge. Add to this a demonstrated contempt for the victims as shown above and you are seeing a movement that needs to get its act together, but refuses to.
 
I noticed over at LGF they can no longer see the film, as their link was to the Hot Air location, which has since been moved to their "Top Picks". If anyone here has a membership at LGF, perhaps someone could post the link to the youtube or google video site for them...
 
I'm looking at the thread right now talking about little ol' me.

Uh, they do know that I already made a video that goes line-by-line of their famous documentary, right? And that I write a website listing my sources and so forth?

I've already did the debunking ordeal. Idiots.

And they say I don't debunk their claims...yeah I did.

- Dubai myth
- Jets were scrambled
- Bombs on Flight 93
- Mark Bingham's mother and her aunt
- Barbara Olsen using collect call
- Bodies found in the pentagon
- Saudi Arabia embassy for the hijackers
- Edna and the fires
- A fire safety expert agreeing with the official story
- Kevin Ryan being an idiot
- UL did not certify steel
- "Pull" from Firefighters
- WTC7 southside
- WTC7 was LEANING
- Todd Beamer's "Not that importent"

And probably a few more.

To say I did not present facts is BS. Just another example of BASELESS character assassination from these idiots.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Walter, the same man who has a million dollar challenge. One of these conditions is proving explosions weren't used to bring down the towers in 8.4 seconds


His challenge is no challenge - it requires you to prove a negative.

His money, (the joker has it!) is safe.
 
If you have any interest in truly improving the tone of discourse, you will indeed go to the Loose Change forum and chastise them there. Othrwise, your motives for posting here are very suspect. Why tell one side they need to improve their manners, and not the other side, who is guilty of far more frequent and serious transgressions? It appears you're yelling at us, and doing absolutely nothing to similarly improve the behavior of CT'ers. Seems a little one sided to me. Why come here at all then?

I can tell you one thing he doesn't seem to be here to do: answer questions. brumsen, sould you please answer the questions Stellafane and I asked you about this post?
 
If you have any interest in truly improving the tone of discourse, you will indeed go to the Loose Change forum and chastise them there. Othrwise, your motives for posting here are very suspect. Why tell one side they need to improve their manners, and not the other side, who is guilty of far more frequent and serious transgressions? It appears you're yelling at us, and doing absolutely nothing to similarly improve the behavior of CT'ers. Seems a little one sided to me. Why come here at all then?
Please read this thread before accusing me of one-sidedness.
 
brumsen, sould you please answer the questions Stellafane and I asked you about this post?
OK then.

I'm with Stellafane in wanting to know your reasoning behind this statement. I realize I haven't gone through the NIST report word for word, but in skimming through it I don't find anything that would, even "with broad brushstrokes", say that the government believes Islam is the enemy. Extremists, yes, but you don't see extremists of any stripe saying "Let's sit down and work this thing out." Extremists do things like...well, what they did.

Also, by "with broad brushtrokes" do you mean "in so many words"? In other words, are you saying that the reports don't say Islam is the enemy explicitly, but rather implies it? If so, you'd really have to come up with a lot of verbiage to justify the implication...
I did not mean the NIST report, since that's just about the collapses; nor even the 9/11 commission report. I meant US foreign policy since 9/11, which has been based on a certain picture of "the enemy".
Agreed, though, that it's not quite as simple as something that could boil down to "islam is the enemy".
 
Well, for my opinion, let me toe the line here... I did watch all of MarkyX's new presentation, and on the whole I think it was well done. About 80% is simply echoing their own public performances which is completely fair game.

The remainder are things that I didn't fully understand, some segues and interludes that didn't feel connected -- for instance, the rabble-rousing terrorist videos. I assume the point was "look Dylan, these people are real," but the connection was weak. I don't think you want to attack both the Loosers and the terrorists in the same breath, since I don't see them as morally equivalent. Although if you can substantiate a link to Holocaust denial (it might there for Dylan, I don't know if there is one for the others, surely not all of them) you could try lumping them together...

This film is largely an appeal to emotion. However, it's also asking mindless viewers of Loose Change to consider the source. That's still fair. First thing I read in the newspaper is the opinion section, second thing I do is get some background on the people writing those opinions -- always consider the source.

Anyway, I do appreciate a good propaganda film, and MarkyX, yours works well. Got me nice and angry. Still, I see no cause for violence, and anyone motivated to violence after seeing your presentation is out of bounds, period. I think we can all agree on that. I see the purpose of your presentation as convincing the novice viewer that Avery and company aren't the altruistic defenders of freedom that they claim. This happens to be a fact, so "character assassination" it is not.

---

Cliff's Notes: Good film MarkyX, but some people will take this the wrong way. It's a powerful subject.
 
It is presenting reality in a certain way with a certain intention; namely to use things they say which are likely to stir up emotions in order to cast doubt on other things that they also say. I don't think the intention is right.

I wasn't accusing anybody of putting words in their mouths.
Well, I can tell you that several things motivated me to put together my "Loose Change Creators Speak" compilation.

I knew how nasty and ignorant many of the comments in LC were, and I pointed these out to its creators in a lengthy critique. I also pointed out dozens of factual errors, misleading statements, logical fallacies, misuses of images and quotes, etc. I did that because I had the impression that these guys didn't know how lousy their methods were. I wanted to sober them up.

It didn't work. When I heard the things they were saying on the radio recently, I couldn't believe it. In a few areas they improved slightly, such as Avery begrudgingly admitting that there probably were real passengers on the planes. But in many cases they've gotten worse, embellishing their fantastical (and thoroughly refuted) theories with even more absurd details.

So I started listening to the recorded interviews that are linked and promoted on their website. I didn't have to dig for this stuff: they're PROUD of it. The first thing I listened to was the piece that MarkyX and I started our compilations with: Avery saying that he would laugh in the faces of five armed hijackers, Avery laughing while the host insulted Chick Burlingame and his sister, Avery mocking the hijackers' murderous assaults, gleefully comparing boxcutters to butter knives, and saying that it was ridiculous that anyone could believe that these hijackings and murders took place.

And that was just the beginning. So I transcribed as much of their madness as I could bear. I thought it was important that they, and their supporters, be reminded of just how cruelly ignorant they are.

I also offered to sit down with the LC guys for a day and go over exactly where they were wrong (I gave them my critiques but I assume they didn't read them). Avery's response: "You're a waste of my time."

A couple of days ago Avery posted on LC that Mark Roberts isn't my real name, and that I often travel with a fat man in a suit who talks on a cell phone a lot. I've met Avery once. These people are stark, raving stupid, and as long as they continue to lie about 9/11, I'm going to call them on it.

Loose Change is just part of this equation. Fetzer, the former teacher of "critical thinking," is even louder, loonier, and just as offensive, although as far as I know he hasn't made any videos, thank Ed. Alex Jones is off the charts with paranoid hysterics. Steven Jones' 9/11 "research" is a mockery of the scientific method. Judy Wood laughingly compares the Twin Towers to trees with elves living in them. Morgan Reynolds doesn't think planes hit the Twin Towers. Jeff King thinks "Tesla weapons" may have brought down the Towers. Killtown, Hufschmidt, and Rajter show that they are well-rounded conspiracy theorists by also denying the Holocaust. David Ray Griffin does not believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Go to Ground Zero on Saturdays and hear how the FDNY was "in on it" and how the terrorists were victims, just like the people they murdered and the families they tore apart.

And on, and on.

These people's characters are plainly exposed by their own proud words.

The "9-11 Truth Movement" is an absolute disgrace to the truth. Don't like the tough talk? Too bad. These creeps have earned zero respect.
 
...The US have a Very Serious problem here. Insufficient level of education to enable the masses to see through nonsense conspiracy mongering; and a government that trades in cover-ups and intransparency. Quite an explosive combination.
You are aware that anti-official-story conspiracy theorists have been flourishing around the world, no?
 
I assume the point was "look Dylan, these people are real," but the connection was weak.

The connection I tried to bring (and I admit, it's weak) was that this fat texan man is bullhorning in Chicago about "invading the planet" by the "New World Order" but then I place a few clips that go against his statement and show how ignorant (or dismissal) Alex Jones is. Also, it is supposed show something that you won't see in the western media. I probably went over my head at that part, but it disguists me that people don't see that these muslim extermists aren't just in the Middle East. Just a few days ago, Montreal, my home town, some people were attacked by muslim extermists for siding with Israel. In Toronto, I hear protests from Muslims saying Sharia law should be enforced in Canada. That's why I wanted to show these clips. I want people to start being AWARE of what's going as opposed to simply ignorning it.

The general message of this scene was "Who are you going to believe...Alex Jones on a bullhorn, or the dozens upon dozens of islamic fundies that have commited numerous attacks for the past few years and saying that Islam will rule over the world" ?

Again, I admit that it is a weakpoint, but I am trying to show how ignorant they were at those clips. I think the "Freedom Fighters" bit worked much better.
 
Last edited:
I probably went over my head at that part, but it disguists me that people don't see that these muslim extermists aren't just in the Middle East. Just a few days ago, Montreal, my home town, some people were attacked by muslim extermists for siding with Israel. In Toronto, I hear protests from Muslims saying Sharia law should be enforced in Canada. That's why I wanted to show these clips. I want people to start being AWARE of what's going as opposed to simply ignorning it.
Your point is correct and well taken, however I think it dilutes the message that 9/11 Deniers are not to be trusted. This is a separate topic. You might want to couch it with some words of introduction, or link the two by saying "these are real people with their own, non-US media outlets; they are not a fabrication of the CIA." Just a suggestion.
 
Well too late for that.

I don't think it would affect the overall rating. If Loose Change can be accepted, then I'm sure this will go along fine.
 
I most definitely agree. (I have watched the first part, and am currently undecided whether to watch the rest.)

I think much of the stuff done by people on this board is fairly decent as a response to Loose Change, but I feel that performing character assassination - even if the people targeted lend themselves to it quite easily because of what they say - is really not the way to go. Really Not.

Do you really expect the discussion to become any better by cranking up the sentiments? Answer honestly, now.
Character assassination is spreading rumors about drugs or something.

This is merely playing back these guys' own words in the context of images that reveal how thoughtless they are. It might be character suicide, but you can hardly call it character assassination.

I think the discussion will become better once this makes the rounds, yes. The reason is, more people will think twice about what they are saying or how they are framing it. Free speech cuts both ways.

edit: Are the news outlets who reported Mel Gibson's antisemitic remarks guilty of character assassination?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom