The Loose Change forum

Miragememories said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not laughing.

You made several derogatory statements, one directed at a forum member's character and accusing him of being "by no means squeaky clean," and have resisted all requests to back them up. Why do you behave like this?

Where I come from, you don't accuse someone else of perfidy without being prepared to back it up. I am quite prepared to back up what I said about "Loose Change." You display a completely different regard for others.

Frankly, this is in fact consistent with many, but not all, other conspiracy theorists. You disappoint us all.
 
The Doc said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree The Doc.

For that reason I have read numerous books, many papers 'pro and con' and have seen a multitude of documentaries.

I'm not inclined to believe all the the well presented arguments I've seen are 'hogwash'. Feel free to trash the lazy badly researched ones.

I do think the skeptics do an excellent job of raising the point that there are a lot of questions that so-called CTers can't answer or don't answer satisfactorily.

My hope is that someday a proper unrestricted investigation will be launched that will finally put the 9/11 issue to bed.

For the record, I dearly hope that the Official Story is the legitimate one!

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I agree The Doc.

For that reason I have read numerous books, many papers 'pro and con' and have seen a multitude of documentaries.

I'm not inclined to believe all the the well presented arguments I've seen are 'hogwash'. Feel free to trash the lazy badly researched ones.

I do think the skeptics do an excellent job of raising the point that there are a lot of questions that so-called CTers can't answer or don't answer satisfactorily.

My hope is that someday a proper unrestricted investigation will be launched that will finally put the 9/11 issue to bed.

For the record, I dearly hope that the Official Story is the legitimate one!

MM
Click to expand...

Question.

Have you read the NIST report? Have you read the 9/11 Commission report?
 
Gravy said:
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.

I agree with you.

Why would you get banned for that?


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.

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

I meant banned at LC. I'm not certain where all the lines in the sand are.

Thanks for the offer on details but I'm so swamped with work and a backlog of reading that I honestly wouldn't be able to read it soon. I do understand how exhausting..and boring that much work can be.

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



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.



This contradicts what you just said! :confused:
Click to expand...

I never said it had to be or should be neutral, kookbreaker.

There's a big difference between biased and colorful. It's all a question of style and effective presentation.

Neutral is fine if your goal is to put your audience to sleep or the factual information is so exciting it speaks for itself.

It's rather naive of you to believe content alone conveys the message we derive from reading.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
I have studied both reports.

No I have not read them both from beginning to end.

I suspect few here have.

MM
Click to expand...

Where did you study the reports?

The reason I am asking is because I feel that most CT'ers are arguing against us for the sake of arguing. They've made it "us vs them" instead of trying to disprove the official story.

I, myself, have read the entire commission report and I've been reading the NIST report for about 2 months now. Hard to find time though.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I'm not laughing.

You made several derogatory statements, one directed at a forum member's character and accusing him of being "by no means squeaky clean," and have resisted all requests to back them up. Why do you behave like this?

Where I come from, you don't accuse someone else of perfidy without being prepared to back it up. I am quite prepared to back up what I said about "Loose Change." You display a completely different regard for others.

Frankly, this is in fact consistent with many, but not all, other conspiracy theorists. You disappoint us all.
Click to expand...

I acused no one of treachery R.Mackey.

If it makes you feel better, I'll say as far as I know Mark is squeaky clean.

It wasn't meant as a slur but a universal observation that no one is perfect.

My comment wasn't directed at his character either. I have no reason to believe that Mark is anything but honourable and dedicated to his beliefs.
I'm sure he's quite capable of defending himself if he feels his character is being maligned and doesn't need you to rise to his defence.

MM
 
Hi MM,

I am sorry to barge into your argument and your defence of LC but could you give me you opinion on this?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=2114

Maybe you could clarify exactly what you think happened to the passengers and crew of the flights.

Do you agree with this?
They were vaporized when the plane was hit a point blank range by an A10 Thunderbolt. I suspect the plane was also hit at altitude. At this point, I don't know what its actual flight path would have been. There was debris spread over a twelve mile stretch, but it was in the opposite direction from which we are tole the plane was flying. My guess is the plane was intended for WTC7, but they lost the window and decided to ditch it.
Click to expand...

or this ?

I think they were experiments for what we are going to be going through later.

I think they were used for biometrics, scanning, used to see how far they could be tourtured, I think they were treated worse then they jews were treated in the concentration camps during WW2. I believe thats coming again for all the world. And they were used as experiments for some time.
Click to expand...

or maybe this ?

The intelligence agencies, realizing that 1/4 of their plan had been foiled, ordered the plane shot down to kill off the potential witnesses.
Click to expand...

or this ?

I just don't believe the plane was shot down or secretly diverted to another airport where the government intercepted the plane and passengers and experimented on them before killing them and melting down the plane
Click to expand...

Or can you possibliy imagine how offensive your forum is ?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes you are right! LC has been wrong before they started. Wrong as Dylan speaks. I see you think opinions work in the real world as theories; they have; gee they burned witches. Guess if LC was running the world the inner circle in the secret "ready room" would have me burnt. I should not have taken those physics courses.

My goodness your opinion is someone set explosives in the WTC. No proof just opinions. You are just like LC videos. Simple lies.

LC is a collection of lies.

How can I put it easy to you. LC deceives and give wrong impressions; they tell lies.

LC present false information and intend to deceive; they tell lies.

Your opinions mean someone had to do the planting of explosives; if you have no proof you are deceiving and that makes you a liar.

Simple and easy for me; what do you think? Does LC have any facts; all I can find is lies. When you take LC videos as a whole they are just a lie; just like the rest of the truth movement.

Have you finished spreading the word? Or have you found a fact?
 
Miragememories said:
I acused no one of treachery R.Mackey.

If it makes you feel better, I'll say as far as I know Mark is squeaky clean.

It wasn't meant as a slur but a universal observation that no one is perfect.

My comment wasn't directed at his character either. I have no reason to believe that Mark is anything but honourable and dedicated to his beliefs.
I'm sure he's quite capable of defending himself if he feels his character is being maligned and doesn't need you to rise to his defence.
Click to expand...
Fine. Thank you for retracting your earlier statement.

Nonetheless, I would have been much more interested if you had some reason to have made the statement in the first place, much as how I asked you, with the very first post in which I addressed you, if there was any factual basis behind your insistence that "Loose Change" was not a work of fiction.

It seems clear at this point that the answer is "no." But please correct me if I misread your evasions.

Unfortunately, if you don't have any facts to bring to the table, then I will lose interest completely. I'm not swayed by unsupported arguments. I keep hoping that the entire Trooth Movement has some actual basis behind it, and that we merely have yet to meet anyone who understands it, but I grow less and less optimistic about this outcome with each Troother we meet.
 
OK, I am amazed.

I am not an active member of the Conspiracy Theories sub forum here. I saw a thread talking about how JREF members were being banned without even trying to stir up trouble. I took this as a challenge, because I certainly wasn't looking for trouble with them. I'm more interested in finding out how they think, and why they think what they do, then trying to debunk everything that they promote. I wanted to show that a rational, fairly neutral party could post on the Loose Change forum without getting banned.

I got 6 posts in, all in the 'Skeptics' subforum, and I was banned. The most ironic thing is that 5 of my 6 posts were in a thread talking about how skeptics were not objective. I've read over my posts, and I have absolutely no idea what I said to get me banned; I really wasn't trying to stir anything up. When I logged in, and saw that I couldn't post any more, I actually E-Mailed Dylan assuming that a mistake had been made. It doesn't look like it was a mistake.

So, anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Where's my badge? :)
 
Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
OK, I am amazed.

I am not an active member of the Conspiracy Theories sub forum here. I saw a thread talking about how JREF members were being banned without even trying to stir up trouble. I took this as a challenge, because I certainly wasn't looking for trouble with them. I'm more interested in finding out how they think, and why they think what they do, then trying to debunk everything that they promote. I wanted to show that a rational, fairly neutral party could post on the Loose Change forum without getting banned.

I got 6 posts in, all in the 'Skeptics' subforum, and I was banned. The most ironic thing is that 5 of my 6 posts were in a thread talking about how skeptics were not objective. I've read over my posts, and I have absolutely no idea what I said to get me banned; I really wasn't trying to stir anything up. When I logged in, and saw that I couldn't post any more, I actually E-Mailed Dylan assuming that a mistake had been made. It doesn't look like it was a mistake.

So, anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Where's my badge? :)
Click to expand...

Maybe you write too well and they resent it. LC is exactly like what they are against.
 
Ripley Twenty-Nine said:
OK, I am amazed.

I got 6 posts in, all in the 'Skeptics' subforum, and I was banned. The most ironic thing is that 5 of my 6 posts were in a thread talking about how skeptics were not objective. I've read over my posts, and I have absolutely no idea what I said to get me banned; I really wasn't trying to stir anything up. When I logged in, and saw that I couldn't post any more, I actually E-Mailed Dylan assuming that a mistake had been made. It doesn't look like it was a mistake.

So, anyways, I guess what I'm trying to say is: Where's my badge? :)
Click to expand...

Only 65 percent of LC posters believe we made it to the Moon. The one says it is technically impossible. I hate to say it but for most at LC it is technically impossible for them to land a man on the moon. But for engineers and scientist it is possible, and we did it.

Education is needed and it is not easy to become an engineer; you have to study and cut down your weed use some. And opinions will not work when you need orbital mechanics.

 
Miragememories said:
For that reason I have read numerous books, many papers 'pro and con' and have seen a multitude of documentaries.

I'm not inclined to believe all the the well presented arguments I've seen are 'hogwash'.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of one single argument for the CT that isn't "hogwash"? I'm guessing not, as you've had ample opportunity to make one single post here supporting the CT and have yet to do so.

Conversely, have you read anything in the 9/11 Commission report or any of the NIST reports that you feel is "hogwash"?
 
Mirage:

If you get a chance, please take my quiz for truthers and CTists. It is in a link within the subforum. You will find it under "Multiple Choice Quiz for CTists and Truthers", or something to that effect. You can post your answers at the end of the quiz thread, so we can all see where you stand on many of the CT issues around 9/11

Thanks and welcome to the Forum.

TAM:)
 
My US$0.02
Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation Description of Middle Ground


This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
  1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
  2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
  3. Therefore C is the correct position.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning. Examples of Middle Ground

  1. Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
  2. Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
  3. A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.
Click to expand...
  1. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html
 
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...
You're stunting. You think quite highly of yourself. And, you're spending way too much time explaining why you do not wish to discuss anything. Dancing like crazy. Very high probability, in my opinion, you've been here before under a different name. Exceedingly high probability.

On the off-chance that you wish to discuss something specific:

You described a "volcano like explosion" in the inner core of WTC1. Was that the trigger for the collapse? And if so: How do you explain the fact that the WTC1 inner core stood, briefly, AFTER the outer core and floors had already collapsed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom