• 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.
I just read round two of Fetzer vs. Dunn...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5875

His rule of "silence equals agreement" should apply here. When you raise five points, and the other side picks out ONE they can counter, then it must meant they accept the other four and the discussion should advance from that point. No more burying it under new factoids.

I agree that the first part of this exchange was kind of weak on Dunn's side, but in this exchange it's beautiful the way he demonstrates perfectly how Fetzer just dances away from the "factoids" that get shot down and throws up new ones to replace them.

Dunn will have none of it. He forces every point to be addressed and calls attention to every point the other side runs away from. Every debate here should look like this.
 
J.R. Dunn @ the American Thinker link said:
...It’s at points like this that you realize that the conspiracy impulse, the force that drives these people, cannot be countered by rational means. A conspiracy in which the whistleblower is killed is one thing. A conspiracy in which hundreds of others are killed, and the intended victim continues blithely on as if it had nothing at all to do with him…. There’s no rational explanation for that. And there’s no point in asking the Professor, the Colonel, or the staff of Portland Indymedia about it. They’ll just start telling you about a screw that was found on the sidewalk in front of the Pentagon, that was used only in a single model of the Stearman 43 Biplane, made in one particular plant in 1938, and that proves….
Precisely.
 
I just read round two of Fetzer vs. Dunn...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5875

His rule of "silence equals agreement" should apply here. When you raise five points, and the other side picks out ONE they can counter, then it must meant they accept the other four and the discussion should advance from that point. No more burying it under new factoids.

I agree that the first part of this exchange was kind of weak on Dunn's side, but in this exchange it's beautiful the way he demonstrates perfectly how Fetzer just dances away from the "factoids" that get shot down and throws up new ones to replace them.

Dunn will have none of it. He forces every point to be addressed and calls attention to every point the other side runs away from. Every debate here should look like this.

Yes, this exchange was much better, and your point (and Dunn's) is an important one.
 
MarkyX's Video "Screw Loose Change" was purposely removed by Google Video...Their explanation seems odd. Check out his thread on the same. Talk about censorship.

TAM
 
2 points for originality...

I couldn't help but smile when I read this comment over on Conspiracy Smasher's site:

Naudets are a Psyop.

Naudets is an anagram of Duane St -- where their "film" was shot, which was staged, and does NOT show an airplane hitting WTC1.
Emphasis mine.
 
Naudets is an anagram of Duane St -- where their "film" was shot,

Because we all know when you are planning a conspiracy, Rule #1 is to make sure you leave a trail of anagrams as clues.
 
Seems Paul Watson has decided to start smearing some of the Debunkers...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/220906debunksitself.htm

Not sure it is going to be pleasant to read.

TAM

You know they are hurting when they start personally attacking people now. Poor, mediocre, or great use of the English language does not invalidate one's claims.

The writer has made no evidence in the entire article as to whether or not "Pull it" is truly a controlled demolition term involving explosives. We have our evidence, from people in the demolition industry to the footage at "America Rebuilds" where they use cables to pull WTC 6.

They are afraid of us and it's showing.

EDIT: Speaking of which, PM does mention that no fire fighting was at WTC7. True, but the firemen were there, but they weren't fighting the fire due to warning signs the building was giving out of a possible collapse. You can read their statements in the New York Times listed on the Screw Loose Change video site.

EDIT: They also included my 9/11 Deniers Speak video...awww
 
Last edited:

Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Middle school grammar, contradictory arguments befit proponents of the official conspiracy theory

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 22 2006

A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.

Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.

The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."

The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.

As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.

For example, the term "conspiracy theorist," in the singular is used throughout the website in phrases such as, "In every major event there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorist live for this."

The author seems unable to grasp the concept of the plural.

"Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorist clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?"

If a hall is filled one would presume the presence of more than one person.

Again, if I had found a few typos I would be nitpicking but if this individual can't even construct a basic sentence how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?

The author uses the buzzword of 9/11 official story conspiracy theorists in citing the "logical fallacies" allegedly associated with 9/11 skeptic's arguments and yet the website's Building 7 page betrays the biggest logical fallacy by completely contradicting itself.

The website first refutes claims that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment meant to demolish the building by quoting Silverstein's spokesman.

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Having established that there were firefighters in Building 7 and that those firefighters had to be "pulled" from the building, the website concludes that,

"There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out." (Again note the serious case of plural amnesia).

And yet in the second paragraph of the page the author claims that, "Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them." (another error).

So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?

To repeat Silverstein's spokesman, "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."

Popular Mechanics, which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?

The contradiction proves one of two things - either Silverstein is lying about what his "pull it" comment meant or the so-called "unfought fires" which contributed to the building's collapse were actually being extinguished.



You can't have your cake and eat it.

The likelier scenario when one judges the length of time it took before Silverstein responded to the "pull it" controversy and an overview of firefighter's comments on the day strongly suggests that no firefighters ever entered WTC 7 - meaning Silverstein is lying about his 2002 comments on the PBS documentary.

The website seems to take unbridled joy in the threat to Professor Steven Jones' livelihood in the wake of his suspension, failing to mention that the suspension was preceded by a World Net Daily article that claimed Jones had called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government - a completely bogus and libelous charge that World Net Daily later retracted after the writer Jonathon Moseley was unable to cite his source for such comments during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.

In the links section, the website carries a You Tube video of Loose Change guru Dylan Avery's appearance on the Jack Blood Show. Mirroring other reactionary hit piece videos against the 9/11 truth movement, the clip slyly juxtaposes victim's family members looking solemn and images from beheading videos against Avery and Blood making dismissive remarks about the official story - implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims. The contrast of the emotionally laden images of crying wives and children with Avery and Blood's light-hearted casual conversation is a trick to deceive the naive viewer into believing Avery and Blood are rude and unsympathetic to the tragedy of the event.

Even Avery's occasional use of the word "whatever" is portrayed as a sideswipe at the 9/11 dead.

As Avery and Blood discuss the incredulity of Arabs with box cutters being able to take on passengers and burly ex-military pilots, unconnected images of BBC articles about Britain's knife amnesty and how knife crime is rising are flashed.

This is all about emotional style over substance and is bluntly intended to characterize 9/11 skeptics as uncaring inhumane carpet baggers - without ever being able to address the evidence.

We urge our readers to comb through this website for themselves - it won't be long before you run across bizarre leftfield arguments (at one point the collapse of the twin towers is compared to two pool balls hitting each other), confounding statements that are an affront to the English language, and outright errors concerning the claims of the 9/11 truth movement.

We invite you to e mail the anonymous author of the website, maybe take pity on them and offer to buy them a dictionary.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/220906debunksitself.htm

Reference link was the one in my post above, but for some reason it isnt there.

TAM
 
Reference link was the one in my post above, but for some reason it isnt there.

TAM

If your main argument for attacking a person's article is poor spelling, what then do you have left to built a case? This is debunking in it's poorest form. Sorry, did I said debunking? I haven't seen any debunking at all. Let him come back with some proper counter arguments, or rather, evidence. Because I still haven't seen that coming from the deniers.

But, since this Paul Joseph Watson appearantly likes to comment with skills of a child, I'll return him that favor.


suxx0r! how old r u? liek 5 or som3tin ?!!

PWND!!!!1!!!one!

Crylol.gif
 
As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.
Ed help him if he ever visits the LC Forum.
 
The curious thing, is this is written by AJs right hand man. This guy is suppose to know his shaite, and be a front guy in their movement.

I am not sure if he was just bored, and decided to write this, or if he really is this juvenile. Doesn't say much for where their movement is headed...but we knew that anyway.

TAM
 
Clearly, that article shows that Prison Planet believes that paragraphs containing more than one sentence are tools of repression and sentences should therefore be extended as much as possible until they become exceptionally hard to read (even commas should be avoided) and you cram in as many clauses as possible; yes I know it's juvenile to point this out but if you're going to criticise another writer largely on the grounds of their grammar then it would be advisable to double-check your own work too.
 
My Post Number One Thousand

Well this is suppose to be my 1,000th post, so here it goes...

9/11 - Press for the Truth
-------------------------
I just finished watching this documentary. It is a 9/11 film that follows the pathes of the "Jersey Girls" as well as "independent researcher" Paul Thompson.

This film has been touted by almost all of the "9/11 Truth" movement as the "undebunkable" documentary for them, and that it is the ultimate film to represent their stance. Well if that is the case, than all I can say is that 90% of the people who claim to be a part of that "9/11 Truth" movement, are lying. Why do I say this. Not because the film is "debunkable", it maybe, but I do not have all the knowledge to debunk it myself. No, the reason I say they are lying is very simple. 90% of the people who we encounter at the various CT websites, the "Scholars" the "LTW Followers" the "Truth Trolls" push enormous amounts of conjecture, heresay, speculation, and downright wrong "evidence" that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the points made in this film. So any "truther" who says that this film is the best representation of what they "are about" is likely lying.

This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

What this film does not do, is it does not implicate the USG in an "inside job", it does not say "Bush did it" it does not go into PNAC or any of the rediculous things we have been forced to debunk to keep the air clear in cyberspace.

I am still a full fledged debunker, don't get me wrong. I still believe the towers were brought down by Al-Qaeda Hijackers, in cohorts with OBL. I believe the Pentagon was hit by AA77, and I believe in the heroic efforts of the passengers of flight 93. What this film has done for me, is made me realize that the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government. Now if the vast majority of their questions have been answered through the Commission report and all the other information out there, than fine, but if the victim families of the 9/11 attacks feel that the vast majority of their questions have gone unanswered, to their satisfaction, than I say they have a right to the answers.

My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.

TAM
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom