Loose Change - Part II

[dubfan]

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

It's not really a coherent movement, and they're not all unified behind one agenda. The closest thing to a shared objective is that they all claim to want a new "independent" investigation into the events of 9/11, presumably one free of the corrupting influence of government. Why anyone should think they would believe that investigaton --given their refusal to confront the facts in front of them already -- is left as exercise for the reader.

For others in the "truth" movement -- 9/11 is really just the tip of the iceberg. For them 9/11 is just the appetizer on a whole CT buffet which includes holocaust denial, New World Order/globalism/Illuminati, the moon hoax, JFK not killed by Oswald, etc. etc. And those are the ones who aren't really weird. We'll save the lizard people for another time.

 

[Brainster]

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?

HN

Dylan said in a recent interview:

"I would like to see George Bush walk out of office and into a jail cell. Or at least into a courtroom. I don't think he deserves a jail cell."

Of course, any sensible person would wonder, if Dylan really believed that President Bush killed 3,000 Americans to provide a pretext for war, why in the world would he not think he deserves a jail cell? And, no, he doesn't go on to say that Bush should receive a death sentence; he just wanders off onto the "I don't know what I think" garbage. Dylan's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

IIRC in the Q&A session after the Oakland screening (which can be watched online), Jason Bermas claimed that they felt they had enough evidence to indict Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This indicates to me that perhaps their theory is that Bush was duped like the rest of us sheeple.

 

[delphi_ote]

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.

They don't have anything close to a coherent theory, because that would force them to defend specific claims in the face of contradictory evidence. Instead, they couch themselves in a protective cloud of vague paranoia. This lets them dance to new (and even contradictory) claims and evidence whenever necessary.

It's been interesting actually to watch them rationalizing when evidence contradicts them. They'll abandon almost any of the other sections of the movement. In fact, though they make all of the exact same claims that are in Loose Change, many believe Loose Change is part of the coverup!

 

[60hzxtl]

Dylan said in a recent interview:

"I would like to see George Bush walk out of office and into a jail cell. Or at least into a courtroom. I don't think he deserves a jail cell."

Of course, any sensible person would wonder, if Dylan really believed that President Bush killed 3,000 Americans to provide a pretext for war, why in the world would he not think he deserves a jail cell? And, no, he doesn't go on to say that Bush should receive a death sentence; he just wanders off onto the "I don't know what I think" garbage. Dylan's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

IIRC in the Q&A session after the Oakland screening (which can be watched online), Jason Bermas claimed that they felt they had enough evidence to indict Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. This indicates to me that perhaps their theory is that Bush was duped like the rest of us sheeple.

'Like, hey, man Dylan' is drunk on power, and once again we see he does not think things through - uh, Dylan, if Bush walks out of office into a jail cell, who then is president?

 

[CptColumbo]

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.

Actually I've been doing this for a few weeks now, but it's part of my attempt to get some myth that I created into LC3. I'm trying for a psychic angle among others.

 

[Shrinker]

Actually I've been doing this for a few weeks now, but it's part of my attempt to get some myth that I created into LC3. I'm trying for a psychic angle among others.

Wouldn't it be fun if everyone over there was just doing the same thing?

 

[60hzxtl]

This from the Losers:

I really don't think it's the time to be arguing guys. Regardless, Dylan already said he's wrong. He was unaware that this would happen. But the footage was used in many documentaries and presentations along with screenings by people who did not legally gain permission of use by the copyrighted material

Unaware that this would happen? Yet he's an expert on missiles? Controlled demolition? Explosives? Dead hijackers that turn up alive?

Master your own craft, first. You call yourself a film maker?

Bah!

Grampa's got some costumes in the barn, Lets put on a show kids!

'Like, hey, man Dylan' set out to make a fictional film. He never changed course. Now he's starring in it. Don't forget to get a release for yourself.

I can cut and paste the boilerplate for ya buddy - I've used it at NOVA, National Geographic, Discovery, Turner, and History Channel.

 

[Brainster]

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.

I doubt that. LIHOP has been around at least as long as MIHOP, but it's not spectacular enough. There's an old saying in financial circles that bad money drives out good money, and I suspect it's true about conspiracy theories as well. (Not that there are many good ones anyway).

Just looking through the Mosaddeq footnotes quickly I note the usual hallmarks of CTers:

1. Mainstream sources are generally only quoted from the immediate aftermath of the event. This is because there are lots of wild stories floating around in the first few days in the rush to get a scoop. Anybody remember the DC police helicopter that was supposedly hijacked on 9-11? It gets some prominent play in 9-11 Eyewitness. How about the plane that supposedly crashed in Dayton?

2. More recent footnotes refer to fellow CTers, who must be regarded as dubious sources. Hopsicker, Flocco and Ruppert are cited. Among the "news" outlets cited are Ananova, Counterpunch and the World Socialist Web Site.

3. The inclusion of the insider trading claims. For some reason the CT crowd can't resist this. I suspect it's because they know that everybody remembers the initial stories and may not have read the followups months and years later that revealed there was nothing to the claims.

4. The claims that something was up on the web once, but now it's gone (from a group obviously now implicated in the coverup). In this case, it's a list of suspicious trades that the SEC had asked Canadian securities firms to investigate. This is also the factoid that is sourced to the World Socialist Web Site.

 

[delphi_ote]

Regardless, Dylan already said he's wrong.

Actually, Dylan said the exact opposite of that.

we are not going away. thanks to the success of the 2nd edition, we've had a number of people come to us with both footage and evidence. Loose Change Final Cut will be 100% legal and trust me, it's going to blow the 9/11 movement out of the water.

 

[delphi_ote]

This is because there are lots of wild stories floating around in the first few days in the rush to get a scoop. Anybody remember the DC police helicopter that was supposedly hijacked on 9-11? It gets some prominent play in 9-11 Eyewitness. How about the plane that supposedly crashed in Dayton?

Or the bomb at the State Department building? Or the planes that were still in the air in the afternoon? I vaguely recall something supposedly happening in Florida, too. And the anthrax scare... holy God.

I'm still extremely angry that no major media outlet made a serious effort to apologize for these reports. The hysteria that went across the crawlers alone during those first couple days was outright traumatic. Anything that wasn't confirmed was just generally forgotten about, not really corrected.

Television news (especially the 24 hour networks) jumped the shark that day.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

we are not going away. thanks to the success of the 2nd edition, we've had a number of people come to us with both footage and evidence. Loose Change Final Cut will be 100% legal and trust me, it's going to blow the 9/11 movement out of the water.

Does he not understand that when you figuratively "blow [something] out of the water" it means you've destroyed its credibility, not reenforced it?

 

[delphi_ote]

Does he not understand that when you figuratively "blow [something] out of the water" it means you've destroyed its credibility, not reenforced it?

I was wondering the same thing. I thought maybe he meant the official 9/11 story? Whatever he meant, the result is a travesty against the English language.

 

[60hzxtl]

And the anthrax scare... holy God.

Hey, I was case #1160 at NBC. Filled out a pile of papers, (On the clock) talked to a bunch of dept of health counselors and was given a fistful of Cipro with the promise of 90 days more from NBC

I kept trying to explain to them that I had been on the floor that had the anthrax spores for less than 20 minutes, four hours before the window of infection was drawn. In other words had I been there 5 hours later, (in a 10 day window) I wouldn't have counted. No matter, they said, take the Cipro. But I said, I have no symptoms, and this is not contagious. No - take the Cipro. I called my Dr. He said, think about it, and call me tomorrow with your decision. (His hat flew off when he saw how long they wanted me to take this.) I looked at the side effects, and decided not to take it.

2 weeks go by and my nose swab comes back negative (I tried to tell ya') with orders to STOP TAKING THE CIPRO IMMEDIATELY. OK. . .

 

[joseph k.]

I doubt that.

Thanks, I appreciate any insight into these two (Ruppert, Ahmed), being a bit behind some of the million pages of stuff dropped on me as "proof", I am a little overwhelmed with these arguments. Perhaps, my feeling that this method is becoming more prevalent is due to my personal experience with it, of late. It is quite frustrating when folks made up their mind and nothing will convince them aside from me going through a mountain of information and showing its faults. Sadly, it seems that they can't understand that they haven't really looked through this info themselves, especially in an investigative and critical manner.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

1. Mainstream sources are generally only quoted from the immediate aftermath of the event. This is because there are lots of wild stories floating around in the first few days in the rush to get a scoop. Anybody remember the DC police helicopter that was supposedly hijacked on 9-11? It gets some prominent play in 9-11 Eyewitness. How about the plane that supposedly crashed in Dayton?

[slight derail]I have never heard of a supposed plane crash in Dayton. We did however have a jet jockey break the sound barrier in his F-16 on 9-11, and rumors began spreading that the VA hospital had been bombed. [/derail]

 

[Pardalis]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=180
I like this bit from Avery:

i sold the first loose change for 15 bucks, including shipping. i only charged more for the 2nd edition because we spent almost $5,000 making it, including a hard drive which crashed a week before the movie was supposed to be done
3) we donate back to the movement constantly. i dont like publicizing it because i dont do it to prove anything, i do it to give back and to share my success. i just gave 911blogger and revereradionetwork $300 each, i gave Russ Pickering of PentagonResearch $500

What an [rule8]! Not only is he trying to make us believe these are "honorable charities" he gave the money to, but he's also giving crucial information to the lawyers! How lame can a person get?

At least he could have donated this money to the families of the 9/11 victims!

 

[delphi_ote]

[slight derail]I have never heard of a supposed plane crash in Dayton. We did however have a jet jockey break the sound barrier in his F-16 on 9-11, and rumors began spreading that the VA hospital had been bombed. [/derail]

That was the same story I heard as well from a buddy in Dayton that day.

 

[Pardalis]

Oh, a poster named Blinker beat me to it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=270

ETA: What a great post!

 

[delphi_ote]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=180
I like this bit from Avery:



What an [rule8]! Not only is he trying to make us believe these are "honorable charities" he gave the money to, but he's also giving crucial information to the lawyers! How lame can a person get?

At least he could have donated this money to the families of the 9/11 victims!

I question how they spent 5k making this movie.

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh, a poster named Blinker beat me to it:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&st=270

Blinker = Suspended lol

What a devastating response.

This court case is going to be so much fun. Maybe better than the Dover trials.

ETA Now THIS is classic.

You just blew yourself out of the ground with the last statement. If "truth" and lies are determined in court as you point out, how do you know what DA said is lies? Didn't you just cancelled yourself out there no? Talk about an agenda! You practically made your entire post irrelevant.