• 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.

Final Cut announcement?

Undesired Walrus said:
What was this? Link?:)
Click to expand...

I wish I had one for you, UW. This happened last year at the old LC forums, before the admins began banning all skeptics.

In a nutshell, Dylan started a thread called "Black Boxes Found!!!", and went on to say how he had found pictures of the black boxes at the Smithsonian exhibit. The "truthers" ate it up; it was only the skeptics who asked questions.

After Dylan attempted to defend his find for a few pages in the thread, one of the skeptics (a JREFer I think) just did what Dylan and his cohorts should have done in the first place - ask someone from the Smithsonian. Sure enough, the Smithsonian said that the photos in the exhibit were merely their to show what they black boxes would look like. They weren't the real black boxes from the 9/11 flights.

It just shows how horrible Dylan is as a researcher, how he avoids asking any questions that may spoil his pipe-dream, and how quick he is to announce his 'findings' as truth without any research whatsoever.

In a bit of historical revisionism, Dylan then went back and changed the title of the thread to "Black boxes NOT found", which made the whole ordeal even sillier to anyone who stumbled upon the thread for the first time.

I, and others, have brought up this shining example of Dylan's scooby-doo investigating plenty of times since then. I've looked several times for the original thread, but I doubt that it's still around anymore. I'm sure there are still plenty of folks here who remember it.
 
VespaGuy said:
I wish I had one for you, UW. This happened last year at the old LC forums, before the admins began banning all skeptics.

In a nutshell, Dylan started a thread called "Black Boxes Found!!!", and went on to say how he had found pictures of the black boxes at the Smithsonian exhibit. The "truthers" ate it up; it was only the skeptics who asked questions.

After Dylan attempted to defend his find for a few pages in the thread, one of the skeptics (a JREFer I think) just did what Dylan and his cohorts should have done in the first place - ask someone from the Smithsonian. Sure enough, the Smithsonian said that the photos in the exhibit were merely their to show what they black boxes would look like. They weren't the real black boxes from the 9/11 flights.

It just shows how horrible Dylan is as a researcher, how he avoids asking any questions that may spoil his pipe-dream, and how quick he is to announce his 'findings' as truth without any research whatsoever.

In a bit of historical revisionism, Dylan then went back and changed the title of the thread to "Black boxes NOT found", which made the whole ordeal even sillier to anyone who stumbled upon the thread for the first time.

I, and others, have brought up this shining example of Dylan's scooby-doo investigating plenty of times since then. I've looked several times for the original thread, but I doubt that it's still around anymore. I'm sure there are still plenty of folks here who remember it.
Click to expand...
I have somewhat of a recollection of that. I never understood it, and didn't bother...
 
VespaGuy said:
In a nutshell, Dylan started a thread called "Black Boxes Found!!!", and went on to say how he had found pictures of the black boxes at the Smithsonian exhibit. The "truthers" ate it up; it was only the skeptics who asked questions.

After Dylan attempted to defend his find for a few pages in the thread, one of the skeptics (a JREFer I think) just did what Dylan and his cohorts should have done in the first place - ask someone from the Smithsonian. Sure enough, the Smithsonian said that the photos in the exhibit were merely their to show what they black boxes would look like. They weren't the real black boxes from the 9/11 flights......

In a bit of historical revisionism, Dylan then went back and changed the title of the thread to "Black boxes NOT found", which made the whole ordeal even sillier to anyone who stumbled upon the thread for the first time.
Click to expand...

Oh my God. :eek:
 
VespaGuy said:
It just shows how horrible Dylan is as a researcher, how he avoids asking any questions that may spoil his pipe-dream, and how quick he is to announce his 'findings' as truth without any research whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I guess that's too be expected, really. He wants to be a film-maker, not an investigative journalist. Of course, that's no excuse...
 
So what's the status of the announcement? Has it been revealed? What is it? Wiring diagrams?
 
Me said:
Just because you can toot after a plateful of beans doesn't mean you're Le Pétomane.
Click to expand...
TraitorBasher said:
No, but you might still have fans.
Click to expand...
In the many months since the first "Loose Change", Dylan & Co. have refused to acknowledge the near countless errors in their work. This, despite every effort, both in print and in person, to enlighten them.

Since they are not stupid people one might surmise that they are promoting an agenda, one constructed on lies, never mind it simultaneously seeks to divert attention from those responsible for 9/11. I don't know about you, but I believe that counts as despicable behavior.

Are you comfortable with despicable people giving shout-outs to "fans"?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
In the many months since the first "Loose Change", Dylan & Co. have refused to acknowledge the near countless errors in their work. This, despite every effort, both in print and in person, to enlighten them.

Since they are not stupid people one might surmise that they are promoting an agenda, one constructed on lies, never mind it simultaneously seeks to divert attention from those responsible for 9/11. I don't know about you, but I believe that counts as despicable behavior.

Are you comfortable with despicable people giving shout-outs to "fans"?
Click to expand...

I disagree with despicable. They have acknowledged errors. Just look at the Hardfire debate. They even amended errors in the recut.

Your opinion is your opinion. You have every right to have it, and I have every right to disagree.
 
TraitorBasher said:
I disagree with despicable. They have acknowledged errors. Just look at the Hardfire debate. They even amended errors in the recut.

Your opinion is your opinion. You have every right to have it, and I have every right to disagree.
Click to expand...
No the whole film is in error. Error. You need to stop visiting the neoNAZI sites who have no idea what 9/11 was or is.
 
To my understanding, LC hasn't admitted to any specific errors. None of the major errors in LC mentioned over at SLC blog and Gravy's guide have been acknowledged and corrected.
 
The Doc said:
To my understanding, LC hasn't admitted to any specific errors. None of the major errors in LC mentioned over at SLC blog and Gravy's guide have been acknowledged and corrected.
Click to expand...
they admitted (and eventually corrected) the b-52 thing, and in the redub for the recut they pronounced robert macnamaras name right (although i dont think they ever explicitly admitted that error)

but neither of these were major errors, most likely just typos in the voiceover script (b-25 transposed to the better known b-52 and macnamara misspelled mcnamara)

AFAIK these are only errors they have bothered to correct
 
TraitorBasher said:
I disagree with despicable. They have acknowledged errors. Just look at the Hardfire debate. They even amended errors in the recut.
Click to expand...
They have not acknowledged all of their errors. Which are nearly beyond count. This is willful ignorance. And, considering the subject matter, despicable.

Your opinion is your opinion. You have every right to have it, and I have every right to disagree.
Click to expand...
Bully for you. Never mind you skirted around my point.
 
The Doc said:
To my understanding, LC hasn't admitted to any specific errors. None of the major errors in LC mentioned over at SLC blog and Gravy's guide have been acknowledged and corrected.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is something I noticed when I was exchanging words with Dylan last week on their forum. He kept on saying how they admit to errors. Yeah, they admit to errors, but they never say what they are.

Kind of defeats the purpose.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
They have not acknowledged all of their errors. Which are nearly beyond count. This is willful ignorance. And, considering the subject matter, despicable.

Bully for you. Never mind you skirted around my point.
Click to expand...

How do you know they arent acknowledging them? They are producing the final cut. Should you not wait to review the contents of that before you say they havent corrected errors?
 
TraitorBasher said:
How do you know they arent acknowledging them? They are producing the final cut. Should you not wait to review the contents of that before you say they havent corrected errors?
Click to expand...
have they produced a list of known errors they will be fixing?

no? then they havent acknowledged them publicly

and correcting is not always the same as acknowledging, esepcially not with the orwellian means by which things are "corrected" in truth movement (fix it, forget it, hope everyone else forgets it too)

perfect example of this is the pod theory, which they claimed was the strongest evidence in the first edition

2nd edition comes out, no pods, dylan makes a point of saying its not a win for debunkers, but was merely cut for time (which demotes to weakest evidence now)

later, he stated it was the pet theory of jaye whats-his-name who worked with them on the first edition, and he pushed to have it included (IE "i didnt do it")

now he just ignores it entirely, like it never happened, its pretty much relegated to half a step up from the full no-planers
 
TraitorBasher said:
How do you know they arent acknowledging them? They are producing the final cut. Should you not wait to review the contents of that before you say they havent corrected errors?
Click to expand...

Just because they address different subjects does not mean they acknowledge errors in previous versions. They can always claim they omitted subjects for different reasons. They have had 3 versions, with numerous different claims, and other than the B-52 error, the only thing I can remember them acknowledging, and even vaguely so, was the fact that the cell-phone argument was weak.

BTW, if you want to get Dylan really riled up, mention that this is the 4th version of Loose Change. He seems really sensitive to that fact.
 
TraitorBasher said:
How do you know they arent acknowledging them?
Click to expand...
No one's saying they won't acknowledge them; everyone's saying they haven't acknowledged them.

They are producing the final cut. Should you not wait to review the contents of that before you say they havent corrected errors?
Click to expand...
Given LTW's track record, expect errors to be swept under the rug rather than acknowledged. When asked by fellow truthers why such-and-such piece of "evidence" wasn't included, expect Dylan to merely say they decided to focus on the "undebunkable" "evidence". Actually, I think he may have already done this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom