Gravy's "Loose Change" Critique, part deux

[Hutch]

First, welcome to the Forum, moficky; feel free to look around the other sections of the Forum; lots of good stuff here.

I personally know a couple guys (separately) who buy into all of this stuff, and I've spent way too much time and energy trying to show them the error of thier ways, to no avail. every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

The funny thing is, they're otherwise reasonably intelligent, well educated, contributing members of society (although, past heavy cocaine use seems to be a common thread, now that I think about it). They just can't bring themselves to believe that the guys who say they did it actually did it, instead contorting all reason and logic to explain something they refuse to understand.

And that is how it goes; pin them down on one item and they squirm towards another--and another--and another. There is not enough time in the universe to pin down ecery factoid they demand, and if even one minor fact is not available (forget about the 10,000 you showed them), well, "AH HA, see, I told you." You can't win; but you might plant the seed.

Most ridiculous of all is the "planted explosives" argument. even if there was anything approaching a smoking gun in all of thier rantings about it, the clinching argument for me are a few points that I don't believe I've read here or from any other source - to wit:

1. Every video (hundreds?) shows the collapse of both buildings beginning on the floors where the damage caused when the jets / missiles / c-130s / holographs / whatever hit the towers.

a. how did they get those explosives to start first, or alternatively, how did they get the planes to crash exactly where the first explosives were going to be set off?

b. If there were explosives set in those areas, why didn't they explode immediately after the impact? that's a lot of heat, fire, force, for any explosive to survive without ignition.

2. Why bother with the explosives at all? does anyone think the outrage would be any less if the towers had survived the attack? I don't.

Covered many, many times and the reply is always another picture or another video showing puffs of smoke and the CT'er saying "See, See??" They are a very visual species, which make me think that many of them are young, in that visual images are more important and truthful to them than dry reading and hard math.

We shall see.

Again, welcome.

 

[XXX]

Uh-oh. Better be afraid. DJ claims that he's 50% through with his "debunking" of your guide. Still can't wait to see it, if it ever shows...

 

[CptColumbo]

Will Gravy be allowed to respond on the LC forum?

 

[XXX]

I doubt it. He can't even respond to their limited "attacks" on his guide right now.

 

[Gravy]

OK, hold on to your hats...
Gravy, let me offer my sincere thanks to you, again, for your excellent work.
Thanks to CurtC for the user-friendly HTMLisation of it.
And many thanks to all the Globalists, their henchmen, Team JREF Ninja Wave, and unnamed skeptical lurkers for distributing the document so quickly and widely.
Hell, thanks should also go to the "Loosers" who have posted links asking others to debunk it - they are unwittingly losing support for their lame 'movement' by converting lurking fence-sitters to the 'dark side'...

Thanks! It's really due for an update, but I wanted to wait until this copyright stuff was resolved. I'm told by one of the sites hosting it that my critique was downloaded almost 3,000 times in a little over 3 weeks. That's only counting the .doc file downloads, not the HTML views, so that's very encouraging.

My emails have been about 80% favorable, and they come from around the world. I've had lots of people email that they saw "Loose Change" and didn't know what to think of its claims, but didn't have time to look into it themselves, and were very grateful for finding my work. Nice!

 

[steve s]

...every counter to each of thier claims is rebutted with "well, but... what about this!" It's never ending. they just don't listen.

And each "What about..." becomes more and more trivial and inconsequential. So we eventually get nonsense like "What about the fact that a pentagon official canceled a flight for Sept. 11," not realizing that on any given day of the year you can always find someone somewhere in the government who canceled a flight.

...and if even one minor fact is not available (forget about the 10,000 you showed them), well, "AH HA, see, I told you."

In the mind of the CTers, if you can't refute that one minor fact, all the other stuff that you've refuted becomes valid again. Call it the Lazarus Syndrome.

Steve S.

 

[Gravy]

Will Gravy be allowed to respond on the LC forum?

No need. They aren't going to come up with much that's factually wrong. In the introduction to my critique I ask people to email me with any well-researched corrections and I'll incorporate them. AAFIK, not a single Looser has done so.

There are plenty of things that can be improved, plenty of places where I researched stuff but didn't cite references, etc.

What the Loosers don't understand is that any help they give me in improving my document does not work in their favor. I welcome their suggestions.

 

[Manny]

What the Loosers don't understand is that any help they give me in improving my document does not work in their favor. I welcome their suggestions.

And that, at its core, is the difference between skeptics and the Loosers. When confronted with a factual correction, a skeptic's proper response is "Thanks! I learned something today and as a bonus you've helped me appear more credible because I've got my facts more straight. How's about a beer? If you find another error I'll buy you a nice one." A Looser calls you a shill and bans you from the forum.

 

[ktesibios]

In the mind of the CTers, if you can't refute that one minor fact, all the other stuff that you've refuted becomes valid again. Call it the Lazarus Syndrome.

Steve S.

The one minor fact is unnecessary. In conspiracy-land, a claim is never abandoned or retracted no matter what. After all, there's always a fresh supply of rubes who, in the words of Honest John Barlow, "won't know enough to do any smart checking".

Just yesterday morning I stumbled across a press release from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". It seems that they've decided that the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake and in the course of piling up irrelevancies in support, Fetzer hauled out the long-discredited "hijackers still alive" claim. These things just keep rrising, zombie-like, from their grves to eat the brains of the living.

Since the tape in question is, IIRC, audio only, it should be interesting if the "Scholars" go into any detail about why they think it's a fake. Audio recording is about the only human endeavor that I really know about on a technical level, and I've had some experience with forensic audio...

 

[kookbreaker]

Uh-oh. Better be afraid. DJ claims that he's 50% through with his "debunking" of your guide. Still can't wait to see it, if it ever shows...

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

 

[XXX]

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. I actually made the exact same comparison in an earlier post, that it would probably end up like the pathetic debunking attempt of 9/11 myths.

 

[XXX]

On the subject of "debunkings", don't know if you;ve seen this one, but it's not that great either... http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/urbanlegends.html

Or this one...http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/paulboutin.html

 

[Gravy]

The one minor fact is unnecessary. In conspiracy-land, a claim is never abandoned or retracted no matter what. After all, there's always a fresh supply of rubes who, in the words of Honest John Barlow, "won't know enough to do any smart checking".

Just yesterday morning I stumbled across a press release from "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". It seems that they've decided that the latest Bin Laden tape is a fake and in the course of piling up irrelevancies in support, Fetzer hauled out the long-discredited "hijackers still alive" claim. These things just keep rrising, zombie-like, from their grves to eat the brains of the living.

Since the tape in question is, IIRC, audio only, it should be interesting if the "Scholars" go into any detail about why they think it's a fake. Audio recording is about the only human endeavor that I really know about on a technical level, and I've had some experience with forensic audio...

Say, how about emailing them and offering your technical expertise? Wouldn't you like to be a "Scholar for Truth?"

I also think we should start making daily "press releases."
Day 1: The "Scholars for Truth" promoted lies about 9/11 today.
Day 2: Ditto.

 

[Orphia Nay]

You're welcome, Gravy.

Yeah, right. This will be just as good as the '911myths debunking', which either listed one person saying something that contradticted the hundreds of comments 911myths produced, or, more often, just had the nutter spitting out 'I don't buy it. Wah!'

Or their wonderful 'Popular Mechanics Debunking' that they reference all the time, apparently without having read it. That one is just a big moving of the goalposts. They concede nearly every point the PM makes and bring up a bunch of issues that PM didn't cover. if you talk to a dozen CT's,you get a dozen different answers as to which point was the-most-important-thing-so-how-could-PM-not-address-it-they-must-be-hiding-something!

The site that hosts that 'debunking' has some freaked-out stuff. They host an article alleging that the Naudet brothers' 9/11 film was staged. One of my extra-curricular 'unoffical ninja' forays into the LC forum revealed links to the page, so after posting a few times there about it (in the Naudet threads in Investiagte 911), winding a few people up and getting DJLegacy to post an after-the-fact disclaimer about his own allegations, I mustered my monkeys and penguins and lobbed a poo grenade at the source.

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:



Dear Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein & Selz,


I strongly appreciate your efforts in causing the removal of footage from the Naudet Brothers' film from the abominable film "Loose Change".

I would like to draw your attention to some possibly libellous statements made about the Naudet brothers by Leslie Raphael. An essay entitled, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged" appears at the following websites, to name but two:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/911/staged.htm

I have seen links to the essay at the "Loose Change" discussion forum. As of today's date, a Google search for all words, "raphael naudet 9/11" gives 400 results, while "staged naudet 9/11" gives 890 results. (Serendipity.com's contents are advertised 'as available on CD-ROM' on the article's webpage, however, the details reveal the CD-ROM is received 'free' upon purchase of the webhost's other website on CD-ROM for US$186.00, €155.00 or £109.00.)

Many of Raphael's comments are suppositions, questions, and theories, but the article contains a number of possibly libellous statements, which I quote below.

"Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
6 February 2006
by Leslie Raphael
[email protected]
Leslie Raphael, 15 Belmont Crescent, Kilmaurs, Kilmarnock KA3 2SH, UK.

"The point of the exercise is to establish that the Naudet film must have been staged by people who knew about the attacks in advance"

"I am making an accusation of complicity in mass murder, based on the few seconds of film of Flight 11 that I think prove the case."

"But there are reasons for optimism. I say the Naudet film is one of the keys to 9/11, that will expose the true perpetrators. It is not just a documentary record of a crime, but an integral part of that crime. What can we do about it? For one thing, we can call for the issuing of an international warrant for the arrest of the Naudet brothers and everyone else involved in the filming of Flight 11."

"I say that both Naudet and Hlava knew what was going to happen that morning, and were told how to film it by controllers working for one of the US intelligence agencies. Their attempts to explain how they managed to capture their films are obviously contrived, and both photographers are frauds and liars."

Although, as I pointed out, many of his/her comments are suppositions and questions, the author adds this statement that possibly negates that tenuous neutrality:

"...you have to be totally brainless not to see the pattern, but that description would suit the millions of Americans, the shame and laughing stock of the civilised world, who all along have dutifully swallowed every word of the Evil Terrorist Mastermind story, straight from a Superman comic or a Hollywood schlockbuster, because they are incapable of handling anything more complex, like the real world around them."


I would like to see action taken to remove the article from the internet, and that the author and host websites are sued for making and publishing libellous statements. I would appreciate it if you could draw Jules and Gédéon Naudet's attention to this article.

Yours faithfully,

etc.


[bolding added in this post]

Please note that proceeds from the Naudet's film have contributed millions of pounds to the firefighters' and victims' families.

 

[WildCat]

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:

Nice!

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

 

[RandFan]

Awesome Gravy!

I took a break from work today to lurk a bit and I've been all day looking at the screw loose change video and Gravy's file. Cool (not cool that I'm not working but screw it. My son can always go to state school).

Good luck on the debunk Loosers.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Nice!

Thanks very much, WildCat. That means a lot to me, especially coming from the NWO Master Conspirator. After actively debating these "troofers" nearly every day for over 6 months in a number of forums, an often thankless task, any appreciation is very welcome. Any chance of a recommendation for an official "Ninja Wave" title? Or do I have to wait to be banned from the LC forum? Actually, that mightn't be long, after my last posts, and the reaction to my other posts.

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

Exactly. The successful legal action taken by the Naudets against the makers of "Loose Change" really boosted my spirits. My intention is to continue to seek possible sources of libel/slander and take action against it. And, of course, to keep debating, and disseminating Gravy's Critique as widely as possible. I've put the link to it in my signature in two woo forums of which I'm a member.

 

[Shrinker]

Nice!

Why many of the 9/11 "truth" movement woos haven't been sued for libel or slander yet is beyond me, perhaps they don't realize the extent it has reached? It's one thing to accuse gov't officials (where the bar for libel/slander is very high) of the murder of 3000 people, but to accuse private individuals like the Naudet bros, Larry Silverstein, etc is definitely actionable. And there are deep pockets to go after - such as the universities that host many of the "scholars" for "truth" libelous and slanderous statements. Though I'd hate to see a university have to pay for the statements of these yahoos I would like to see them stop hosting this nonsense which gives the 9/11 woos credibility in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

I suspect this is because of a lack of damages so far. While the CT stories are widespread there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone actually doing anything about it, or changing their behaviour in any way. (It's like none of them really believe it.) Therefore, no damages. Now if the Naudets were having difficulty finding employment because of these claims, or were suffereing harrassment, then there'd be a case worth pursuing. As it stands the CTs are really just a bunch of ineffectual loudmouth cranks.

This is another reason why I think mainstream acceptance of the CTs would inflict more damage on the movement than anything else. If they ever get enough momentum to actually motivate physical action, then they'll immediately face legal scrutiny. I think many of them know this, that's why all they do is 'spread the word'.

 

[kookbreaker]

A couple of conspiracy cranks have been sued in the past. The secret service agent accused of accidently firing his carbine into JFK's skull sued the author of FATAL ERROR. But overall, the lack of naming a real conspirator is what keeps CTs safe, not their crankiness level.

 

[Gravy]

I just sent this email to the Naudet's lawyers:

Great job, Orphia!