Loose Change - Part II

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i sent that smiling freak a piece of my mind.

I hope he made it a good one. it was probably his last piece.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Delphi, I saw your posts while I was composing mine, and your spirit egged me on. Let's see how long it takes them to ban me.

 

[sophia8]

Reading this thread is turning out to be my morning's entertainment.
First the Loosers make and distibute a video containing huge chunks of ripped-off copyrighted material.
Than they allow their forum to be filled with posts that contravene all kinds of TOSs.
Then they start pissing off a whole firm of lawyers....
Can't wait for the next episode!

 

[60hzxtl]

Way back on May 4th I made this observation about using their very film to hang the LC'ers - italics mine-

---Guys, all you have to do is take Loose Change and narrate over it. It is mostly news footage, and paid for as stock footage.

Pay the same sources, and put your own narration over his tripe "the sign of hiiiiighhhh expooooosives!

When he hits the "misssssilllleee in the pentagon" bilge water, just keep repeating, But nobody saw a missile.

Is so simple, it costs no more than time and stock footage. It should put a crimp in 'ol Dylan's career.---

I assumed that 'like -hey, man Dylan' had done the least of that - paid for the stock footage.

My mistake! He acts as he never knew that you have to pay for the other guy's work!

This could be the start of a huge pile on - did he pay for ANY of the footage he used? CNN? NBC? FOX?

How about the music? Did he help himself there?

What do you have when your movie has no footage? No pictures?

A Radio show.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species.

So I told Mephisto. Small hope, but hope nonetheless.

 

[sleahead]

Excellent post over on LC, Orphia, and you haven't been banned - yet. A stunning follow up by someone called Blinker has earned them an instant ban.

I do hope this lawsuit at least goes to the point where Avery has to declare how much he has earned from his shameful video and where the money has gone.

 

[Belz...]

No no no. It's Huntster that has the hots for me.

Ugh.

 

[60hzxtl]

Watching them scramble over at the Loser's forum is a hoot. Telling themselves that all we need is a circle hug and we'll- get -that -footage- we need- from -those -nasty -french- guys -who -are -they -to -stop- us- when- our- hearts- are- pure-


That made me realize that the movement over there is based on FEELINGS. We Feeel that wtc7 was ct. We Feeeeel that it was a missile nobody saw at the Pentagon. We Feeeeel that we can use other people's work for free.

Science plays no part. It's just feelings.

 

[Hutch]

I'm just so glad the response has been as strong as it has over here on the JREF. Gravy and Wildcat and Chipmunk and CptColumbo and kookbreaker and so many other people have done way more than I ever would've imagined to counter this nonsense. It's also been amazing how many different people have come together from different political backgrounds, different careers, and different age groups to fight this. It gives me some hope for my species.

Indeed so, and they have rallied round when needed. For example, when they started putting up Danish newspaper articles, there was Claus Larsen to nail that down. And when a couple of them started on the moon hoax, I asked for and recieved help from the BAUT by a poster named obviousman who has buried all but the most oblivious under a mountain of facts and references.

And they think we are somehow part of a vast conspiracy? Yet probably no more than 6-8 of us have been over there at any time, a small fraction of this Boards' numbers. Many posters at the JREF may not even be aware of what is going on--because they are handling other topics in their expertise, not just this one.

Heck, the LC'ers should be happy we haven't released De_Bunk on them...

 

[Shrinker]

A stunning follow up by someone called Blinker has earned them an instant ban.

<cough><cough>

Welcome to the forum sleahead. Very nice opening post if I may say so.

Yes, I earned mine today:

I'll be wearing it with pride for the next two weeks.

(Thanks to Darat)

 

[Darat]

Hmm bug I'll look into it. (ETA) Sorta fixed - if you re-upload it the system won't resize it.

 

[Z]

Shrinker - you need to sell those (or award them ).

Does JREF have an on-line store?

 

[Shrinker]

Shrinker - you need to sell those (or award them ).

Does JREF have an on-line store?

$17.95 each, or free to the familes of banned users.

 

[Shrinker]

I like this, following up from my post...

Don't you like the fact that 2 or 3 people in this thread used their first and only post so far, to basically side with the Naudet's or tell you how to fix your "horrible mistakes".

It's my only post because you banned me you t!t.

 

[dubfan]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's little more than a culty love-fest over there. It also resembles a kid-built plywood clubhouse with a sign reading "No Girls Alowd." Discussion and debate are not on their minds, never mind they seem ill-equipped to engage in such.

It occured to me it might be fun to register and post as a new believer, establishing an initial sense that I'm "one of them." Then, gradually raise small points or geggy-like questions, ever so slightly chipping away at the inanity, all while protecting my cover. Yes, operate as an infiltrator. Why don't I do it? Patience is not my long suit and I'm afraid I would quickly go insane from overexposure to it all.

 

[HerNibs]

I am struggling through the Loose Change forum.

I have several little questions an one big question. I cannot find the answer.

The big question is what do they hope to gain by all of this?

Are they petioning to punish the responsible party? Are they out to help the families of victims?

It would be easier for me to read all of this if there is one person with an agenda that is more than "darn sneeky government has pulled another one".

Yeah, we know the gov can be deceitful and sneaky, didn't need this to tell me that.



Is there a link to a thread or even a post that give the reason why?

Oh, I don't accept "we need to stop them before they do it again...".

I would like to see something more like "we need to stop them before they do it again, so we are X (making this public, gathering funds to help the victims, hiring lawyers to punish, petitioning congress, etc.)

I understand that the reason may be subjective and not as important to me and I am willing to take that into consideration.

I would love to see some one say "with X information and X proof, we will do Y to guarantee that Z happens". Everything I am reading now just seems to be a b!tch session, blame game or calling some one else a poopy head.

Any help would be appreciated. Don't know how long I will have to read to find it myself.

Thanks

HN

 

[delphi_ote]

I like this, following up from my post...



It's my only post because you banned me you t!t.

It was my 70th post. I'm only suspended until the 7th or so.

I think my quick posts about how banning me would make them what they hate kept them from outright booting me off the board.

 

[joseph k.]

...

I would love to see some one say "with X information and X proof, we will do Y to guarantee that Z happens". Everything I am reading now just seems to be a b!tch session, blame game or calling some one else a poopy head.

Any help would be appreciated. Don't know how long I will have to read to find it myself.

Thanks

HN

I know exactly what you mean. I have been poking the bear over there, so to speak (apologies to Colbert), and the only cogent "XYZ" argument I have seen hasn't been from an poster, but a poster's link (of course)...This argument is not exactly how it seems to be interpreted by its poster, but seems to prove blazingly incompetent inaction on several levels stretching throughout key government and intelligence areas with a very real possibility of intentionality. There is some testimony from U.S. attorney David Philip Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former President Bill Clinton, cited saying that Ashcroft was given direct evidence of many aspects of the coming attack, and that several FBI agents were willfully ignored. There is quite a bit of evidence presented here and it will take quite some time to go through it all.

here is the link she gave to me:
www[dot]mediamonitors[dot]net/mosaddeq36[dot]html#_Toc9410686

What I have been noticing at the LC forum and a few various message boards is that the brighter CT folks are dropping the physical evidence arguments and focusing more on the LIHOP type claims. More and more people are citing more serious investigators like Michael Ruppert and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (the second of which I am just learning of). I have read some of Ruppert's work ( www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/ ) and am partly through the Ahmed excerpt from his "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", that is at the end of the above link. Another quite lengthy case is made in Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" and people seem comfortable saying go read that as their sourcing, but I find none of them have lined up enough waterfowl to explain it in their own terms. It is strange, as well, that Mr. Ruppert seems to be distancing himself from 911 conspiracy (I could be mistaken but he isn't as involved from what I have seen as he was in the onset of the "truth" movement) and focusing more on his better recognized milieu of peak oil. Nevertheless, he is a professional investigator (ex-lapd..see his record here: (www[dot]fromthewilderness[dot]com/about.shtml) and the case he has made in "Crossing the Rubicon" is interesting, to say the least.

As I have not processed all the information and haven't much to add on the subject as of yet, I suppose this post is just a heads up that the argument seems to be changing more in this manner.

 

[joseph k.]

here is the link she gave to me:
www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410686

some of Ruppert's work ( www.fromthewilderness.com/ )

(ex-lapd..see his record here: (www.fromthewilderness.com/about.shtml)

YES! 15 posts! ahem...
Here's the completed links.