The Loose Change forum

[beachnut]

I stand corrected. I am not prepared to detail any proof that Mark Roberts has ever made a factual error in any of his works.

His bias and conclusions on the other hand are another thing.

MM

Yes I can not stand his bias for real facts! And I hate his fact based conclusions. I hate the fact he does not let his political bias show in his conclusions on 9/11. Now I must live up to that unbiased approach in the future no matter what my political biases are! Darn you Mark!!!!!!!!!

Darn you to the facts!

 

[Miragememories]

Where one can calculate the energy in the WTC tower and see there is no need to make up a CD CT on 9/11. If you believe in LC videos, a course in physics may help you use your own brain and figure out LC is telling lies. (fact)



The you can save some time and avoid watching LC videos. (fact there are no facts to support the conclusions you find in LC. In fact Dylan says not much of anything does he.)



Have you?




I have observed most CTers fail to remember what you call a bonus tip.



LC is a fictional talk on 9/11. Just basic lies. When you find some facts in LC video it will be a big deal. Please share that smoking gun of facts in LC videos when you find one.



Let me be specific; I have watch the LC video and can find no facts in it to support any CT that any truth movmement supports.

What specific fact have you found?

I agree making up lies about 9/11 like LC videos do is the most disrespectful thing anyone can do. Supporting lies on 9/11 and making up lies is disrespectful. LC video to me is very disrespectful. If LC had any facts on 9/11 it would earn a Pulitzer Prize. So if you support LC video you are disrespectful for not having facts and you help tell lies.

Other than that welcome. But making up CT out of thin air is all the truth movement has so far. 5 years and the truth movement still has no story, no facts, and the big one is no Pulitzer Prize. Facts would turn the tide for the truth movement. But the truth movement uses squibs with no blood as proof of explosives with not noise but it is just air.

Air. Talk. Hearsay. What do you bring?

Are you a NORAD stood down? Sorry I was in the Air Force, we did not stand down. Are you a terrorist can't fly guy? Sorry I am a pilot, any kid could crash a 757/767 into a building.

Facts are what LC lacks. Most CT guys fall for talk as being proof. Why do people settle for the lies of the truth movement, as in LC.

You're obviously right beachnut the whole Truth Movement hasn't a leg to stand on. It's truly unfortunate that they didn't encounter your complete and unequivocal knowledge about the subject from the outset.

I'll be sure to get the word out and I'm sure they'll all be gone by tomorrow.

MM

 

[tsig]

Powder shmowder..not a fine detail I care to get into (no pun intended).

I personally feel and I have clearly stated at LC that the large volume of concrete dust and the relatively limited showing of large concrete debris suggested explosive pulverization more than it did gravity pulverization.

How do we prove this? I have no idea ...but it's my current opinion.

I look at the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 and see a central core volcanic like explosion.

I'm sure the majority here look at it and see a building following a natural collapse sequence after fire has crippled it's structural integrity.

To be quite honest, I hope you are right because I know what it means if I am right.

MM

You can look and I'll do the math and we will see who's right.

 

[Miragememories]

Isn't a documentary supposed to go into the minutae? Otherwise it's just opinion, instead of facts.

Are there any of the 'truth' videos or papers which you feel present an unassailable fact based alternative account of 9/11?

Well uk_dave most documentaries are original works in themselves rather than rebuttals feeding off the work of others.

My point was that Mark's rebuttal docs are like pinball games where he tries to score points on every undotted "i" rather than focusing on just the 'power' messages.

Hey don't get me wrong. I'm not saying his points aren't targeting errors. I'm saying the audience outside of JREF is going to wonder why he's bothering and are likely gonna be put to sleep by the process.

It's quality not quantity that counts.

Of course that's strictly my opinion. I only cut this stuff for a living but what do I know.

Regarding unassailable 'truth' videos or papers; nothing is unassailable but as a rabbit in the lion's den, I won't be so foolish as to even try and suggest quality materials.

MM

 

[beachnut]

You're obviously right beachnut the whole Truth Movement hasn't a leg to stand on. It's truly unfortunate that they didn't encounter your complete and unequivocal knowledge about the subject from the outset.

I'll be sure to get the word out and I'm sure they'll all be gone by tomorrow.

MM

Still no facts to prove you explosives planted in fake offices by fake people making no noise exploding like real RDX would but without the sound. Where did you find this explosive stuff? No thermite cutting devices found. No evidence you just have faith like a religion of truth with no facts?

What facts will you tell us LC has? Fetzer has none. What is your favorite expert in the truth movement?

Show me a fact and put me out of my poor training as a pilot and engineer that lets me figure out 9/11 without help from liars.

When did they plant all these explosives they did not need since the gravity collapse is enough and the only energy responsible for the destruction at the WTC. (impacts and extra fuel included)

Did you know the energy of just the fuel was 315 tons of TNT in energy, in each jet! That was the biggest fuel air explosion I have ever seen.

Facts are not found in the truth movement to prove the CT you support. Prove me wrong. You just make up stuff.

I bet you say they put it in the elevator shafts. How much? Or in the offices near the core. How much did they put there? I bet you think fake companies were set up to do it. Which companies were they? That would be public record!

Since you know it was a CT what facts do you have we have never seen which make you right? (LC has none, do you?)

 

[R.Mackey]

I stand corrected. I am not prepared to detail any proof that Mark Roberts has ever made a factual error in any of his works.

His bias and conclusions on the other hand are another thing.

Thank you, that's almost good enough.

If his facts are accurate, then his bias is irrelevant, and his conclusions correct, wouldn't you agree?

Now do you understand why we're more interested in facts?

 

[Gravy]

MM, you may be mistaking me (Mark Roberts) for MarkyX, who made the Screw Loose Change and 9/11 Deniers Speak videos. I haven't made any videos. Until today, that is, and I'll have that up on Google shortly.

Bias? When I examine a purported documentary about an important event that claims to tell the "truth" about 9/11, and gets every single claim wrong, and contains 81 errors of fact and a greater number of misleading statements, logical fallacies, misuse of images and quotes, etc., you're damn right I'm going to be biased against the people who created such trash...and who refused to correct their errors when asked to do so, but instead call their critics traitors.

Yup. I'm biased against people who lie about 9/11. That's serious. It matters.

 

[Miragememories]

(bolding mine)

Finally something specific.

Are you suggesting that the central core was packed with molten lava, and then erupted like a volcano via remote control?

Is the bold not working on your computer ComspiRaider?

I believe my words were volcanic "like".

Ya you got me. I'm suggesting my beliefs are based on the idea that conspirators triggered a volcano under both WTC towers. What a novel idea. That might make a great movie of the week.

MM

 

[Gravy]

Hey don't get me wrong. I'm not saying his points aren't targeting errors. I'm saying the audience outside of JREF is going to wonder why he's bothering and are likely gonna be put to sleep by the process.

I don't claim that my docs are exciting. I do get emails every single week from people who were taken in by the lies in Loose Change and other videos, and who came to think more critically after reading my stuff.

 

[johnny karate]

Well johnny karate, why am I not surprised to find you here.

Ironically enough, it was through the LC forum that I found this one, and my subsequent banning that led me to register here. I think you'll find a lot of skeptics ended up here that way.

I do miss our frustrating discussions in the LC Forums and I posted that your banning was regretable though not surprising.

I'd be curious to know why you found my banning "not surprising". I was always careful to obey the forum rules. Furthermore, I'd be curious to how you feel about that fact that skeptics are routinely banned for no apparent reason while CTers like Roxdog blatantly and consistently engage in against the rules behavior with impunity. I'm not suggesting you are in any way affiliated with the LC admins, but I just wonder how you feel this clearly hypocritical policy reflects on the people that represent the movement you came here to defend.

Yes God knows I'm well aware that anything I say has to be expert qualified and peer-reviewed before you will grace it with the least bit of consideration.

With that in mind, I suspect you and I will have little meaningful dialogue as I've pretty well said all I can to you on that subject.

I think you'll see (and perhaps have already seen in this very thread) that I am not alone in my standards of evidence. Most people here feel the same way.

Thank you for the welcome though.

You're welcome for the welcome!

 

[GlennB]

I stand corrected. I am not prepared to detail any proof that Mark Roberts has ever made a factual error in any of his works.

His bias and conclusions on the other hand are another thing.

MM

Well, this is disappointing MM.

In all your posts, so far, you haven't made one single substantive comment.
Not one fact.
Zip.
Just word games.

Here's a challenge - make a statement about 9/11 that differs from the OT. Then let's discuss that statement.

You up for it?

 

[Miragememories]

That wasn't what you said. You said, and I quote,


I asked you to back that up. You still have not. Now please, either do so or issue a proper retraction.


They do nothing of the kind. You have seen, I am sure, plenty of expositions in text of the errors contained in "Loose Change". My statement is based upon that analysis, not personal prejudice or lack of objectivity.

As before, you are equivocating. Now, again, please back up your statements with evidence, or retract them. If you can show me how "Loose Change" is not fiction, or how the myriad errors we have found do not damage its thesis, then we will reconsider our opinion. But we will not do so on the basis of your prejudice.

I'm sorry R.Mackey I didn't see anywhere that I applied the word "error" to my comments about those works. I did say something to the effect of nothing being 100% errorfree but I didn't identify any specific errors that I need to retract.

I'd also like to clarify that I have no special allegiance to the LC film/video just because I am a member there.

It wasn't the documentary that significantly influenced my current beliefs.

Dave von Kleist's IN PLANE SITE got me thinking differently initially.

And yes I know it has errors as well.

I honestly hope the final release of LC eliminates all the errors and misconceptions of it's predecessors.

Regarding personal prejudice, well of course I do. Who doesn't? I still try and maintain an open mind though.

For the most part, I have said nothing other than personal opinion and since my opinions are subjective I see no reason to retract them.



MM

 

[R.Mackey]

For the most part, I have said nothing other than personal opinion and since my opinions are subjective I see no reason to retract them.

It's not that your opinions are subjective. It's that they are accusatory, and apparently you can't back them up.

That's why you need to retract them.

 

[Dog Town]

This is from George H @LC, on his thread, "How many "movies" have you handed out..."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2826

I love this...

100+ and counting.

half have been LC.

Response has been nothing.


Worst was X-mas. Went home to all my college friends. Handed out two dozen discs. And these are my friends mind you. And the response has been deafening silence. Worrisome.

*cocks head to side* "Really" ???????????????????????????

Priceless!

 

[Miragememories]

MM, you may be mistaking me (Mark Roberts) for MarkyX, who made the Screw Loose Change and 9/11 Deniers Speak videos. I haven't made any videos. Until today, that is, and I'll have that up on Google shortly.

Bias? When I examine a purported documentary about an important event that claims to tell the "truth" about 9/11, and gets every single claim wrong, and contains 81 errors of fact and a greater number of misleading statements, logical fallacies, misuse of images and quotes, etc., you're damn right I'm going to be biased against the people who created such trash...and who refused to correct their errors when asked to do so, but instead call their critics traitors.

Yup. I'm biased against people who lie about 9/11. That's serious. It matters.

I apologize Mark err Gravy. I'm not sure where I went off the track in the mistaken belief that "Screw Loose Change" was your creation.

My comments about your bias were meant in the context of how they effected your audience outside of JREF. Here you are preaching to the converted and can do no wrong.

Bias as in 'tone' can undermine the point of a presentation. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to feel emotionally involved about your convictions but displaying them in text rather than a speech, to an audience that has yet to be persuaded, can be counter productive. That was my whole point. Feel free to be as openly hostile and as sarcastic as you wish in your public papers. I'm just giving you some honest useful feedback and I did the same with Dylan. At least you responded. I've never heard a peep from any of the LC administrators.

God I hope I don't get banned for saying that.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not particularly a devotee of the LC doc and while I have doubts about your error count, you'll have to wait until I have time to re-screen LC and compare it to your critique before I can respond further.

Oh and as a side note, I think your avatar creates the wrong impression. And yes I did see the whole video it was extracted from.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't like Dylan's avatar either.

MM

 

[The Doc]

The problem with 9/11 Conspiracy is the fact that, at first glance, it is very intriguing.

To believe the Conspiracy you can watch a 1hr 30min movie that will tell you an incorrect version of the official story (straw man) and then debate this "official story" showing several "facts" that are easily debatable and false.

To actually find out the official story you have to read into the investigations done by the NIST, the 9/11 Commission and several independent papers. That's not exactly (for most people) intriguing. It involves reading, education and some degree of intelligence. Much harder than buying into the conspiracy.

 

[Gravy]

My comments about your bias were meant in the context of how they effected your audience outside of JREF. Here you are preaching to the converted and can do no wrong.

The vast majority of people who view this subforum are lurking guests, not members. I don't assume that they're "converted" to any point of view.

Bias as in 'tone' can undermine the point of a presentation. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to feel emotionally involved about your convictions but displaying them in text rather than a speech, to an audience that has yet to be persuaded, can be counter productive. That was my whole point. Feel free to be as openly hostile and as sarcastic as you wish in your public papers. I'm just giving you some honest useful feedback and I did the same with Dylan. At least you responded. I've never heard a peep from any of the LC administrators.

I agree with you.

God I hope I don't get banned for saying that.

Why would you get banned for that?

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not particularly a devotee of the LC doc and while I have doubts about your error count, you'll have to wait until I have time to re-screen LC and compare it to your critique before I can respond further.

If you're actually interested in such detail, I'll gladly give you my categorized error list, which references LC2E errors by transcript line number. I never finished my update to account for changes made in LC Final Cut. It was over 250 pages, with many more references, and I got bored with it. I expanded part of it into my WTC 7 paper. I wrote the original guide after only 3 weeks of learning about these issues, and I've learned much since.

Oh and as a side note, I think your avatar creates the wrong impression. And yes I did see the whole video it was extracted from.

I think it's hilarious, and so do many other people. I'll be keeping it. Thank Oliver for that.

 

[kookbreaker]

My comments about your bias were meant in the context of how they effected your audience outside of JREF. Here you are preaching to the converted and can do no wrong.

I would beg to differ. I have seen many fence sitters change their tune after a reference to the reader's guide or screwloosechange.

Bias as in 'tone' can undermine the point of a presentation. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to feel emotionally involved about your convictions but displaying them in text rather than a speech, to an audience that has yet to be persuaded, can be counter productive.

Again, I beg to differ. If one maintains a completely neutral tone in one's writing the reader may not quite catch the difference between a minor error, a major error, or a deliberate lie. Such distinctions are important.

To date, the only folks I have seen make a comment about Gravy's paper's 'tone' are those strongly inclined towards conspiracy belief in the first place and not really a target audience. In this case, the complaint is little more than a 'You were right, but I didn't like the way you said it!'. Its an intellectual cop-out, and used as an excuse to evade the responsibility of viewing an article for its content.

That was my whole point. Feel free to be as openly hostile and as sarcastic as you wish in your public papers.

This contradicts what you just said!

 

[Miragememories]

Well, this is disappointing MM.

In all your posts, so far, you haven't made one single substantive comment.
Not one fact.
Zip.
Just word games.

Here's a challenge - make a statement about 9/11 that differs from the OT. Then let's discuss that statement.

You up for it?

Sorry to disappoint you GlennB.

From what I've seen, the majority of the posts by everyone here are of a non-factual nature. I wasn't aware that I was obliged to be different.

Like I said earlier, I lurked here for quite some time before joining. It would be no problem for me to climb back into the lurking closet if my visible presence is proving to be unpleasant for the 'rank 'n file' membership.

Regarding your challenge for me to make a statement that differs from the Official Story, I honestly fail to see any point.

I know just about everything about 9/11 has been argued here ad nauseum.

I've seen firsthand the piranha-like feeding frenzy that occurs here when someone attempts any dialogue that brands them as a CTer.

I think I'll live with the fact that most of you already see me as another CT a**hole without bothering to subject myself to the inevitable ridicule.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

It's not that your opinions are subjective. It's that they are accusatory, and apparently you can't back them up.

That's why you need to retract them.

That's too funny R.Mackey, I'm glad to see you have a sense of humour.

If everyone here retracted their accusatory statements this forum would be gutted.

MM