Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thats just completely mental. I cant believe it. I cannot imagine just sitting around and making stuff up and then believing it so deliberately as these guys do. These people are a pyschology students utopia.

Why does coincidence seem an impossible outcome to these guys? No, the frenchies were there because they were in on the conspiracy!
On the weekend here, a spectactor in the Australian football league had an arguement with a coach of his favourite team. Naturally it was big sports news. Incredibly, that same guy later that night got hit buy a train.

Totally freakish
 
Thats just completely mental. I cant believe it. I cannot imagine just sitting around and making stuff up and then believing it so deliberately as these guys do. These people are a pyschology students utopia.
I'd like to see one of the Loosers go to the fire company that Jules Naudet was with and accuse its members of involvement in the plot that killed 343 of their brothers. Sounds like a good film project for Dylan Avery: he'll get to replace some of those firemen quotes he has to cut, and get back at the Naudets at the same time, all while martyring himself for the cause. [/QUOTE]
 
One Looser admits defeat
...While another dreams on
Basic Overview of Gravy in one word, Hypocrite.
(Yes I am working on a Gravy Debunk Breakdown along with a couple other projects, so it's taking me a little time, Im sorry guys)
From what I can tell, the "'hypocrite" part refers to me accusing Avery of making assumptions that are not evidence-based, although I also make several assumptions in my analysis. There's a big difference. My assumptions are based on verifiable evidence. Avery's are not.
 
From what I can tell, the "'hypocrite" part refers to me accusing Avery of making assumptions that are not evidence-based, although I also make several assumptions in my analysis. There's a big difference. My assumptions are based on verifiable evidence. Avery's are not.

Plus, even if they were right, it would still be tu quoque and not bolster their argument one iota.
 
I'd like to see one of the Loosers go to the fire company that Jules Naudet was with and accuse its members of involvement in the plot that killed 343 of their brothers. Sounds like a good film project for Dylan Avery: he'll get to replace some of those firemen quotes he has to cut, and get back at the Naudets at the same time, all while martyring himself for the cause.
I'll walk them there myself if they'd like. But just like Mutton-head, they don't actually want to know what the people they quote really think because they know -- they know! -- that the truth undermines their desparate bid for attention and their mission to deflect attention from the actual perpetrators of the attacks.
 
Plus, even if they were right, it would still be tu quoque and not bolster their argument one iota.
I'm still waiting for even one of the me to email me with any sort of correction. I caught a couple of small mistakes myself, and I think they'd be able to do the same. I do get emails from other truthers that chastise me for omitting other "facts," forgetting that my analysis was limited to "Loose Change." I got one of those emails yesterday. The author said I did a good job with my analysis, then added this (my annotations in brackets):

However, there are some omissions in your review:

- the warnings, some very specific, from 15 allies shortly before 9/11 that it was imminent (who, what, where) [I have seen no evidence that any of the information gathered by these allies was specific as to "who, what, or where.]

- the suppression of five FBI investigations by senior management
[I asked for clarification about these...assume he means investigations about the possible al Qaeda people in the U.S.]

- the anthrax from Ft. Detrick that was sent to the Democratic leadership and the media shortly after 9/11 (when the D's were balking at the so-called Patriot Act) [Yes, that has a lot to do with "Loose Change"]

- the refusal of Secret Service to follow standard operating procedures - failure to remove Bush from a known location [...To an unknown location? Bush was perfectly safe with the grade-schoolers. He stayed at the school to make a short televised speech to the nation before heading back to Washington.]

- "put options" placed on United and American the week before (betting the values would drop on those airlines, and not others) [I covered this thoroughly.]

- the plane into building exercise near Dulles Airport at the moment the actual events started [And?]

- the fact that Flight 77 flew around the building to hit the mostly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector (which is difficult to accept as a coincidence given the extraordinary piloting that required to ensure the damage would be minimized) [Flight 77 "flew around" Washington, D.C., not the Pentagon, in order to hit the Pentagon at all. It had overflown the building at 7,000 feet. There's no evidence that Hani Hanjour had orders to hit a certain part of the Pentagon.]

among other disturbing evidence largely ignored by the "no plane" liars and the debunking of those lies [Sorry for leaving out all other disturbing evidence.]

You claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy (despite the physical impossibility of that claim - which even the US House Committee on Assassinations admitted in the late 1970s - and that George H W Bush was not yet a politician in 1963 and therefore not relevant to the coup against Kennedy. A short response is to ask: "who had the power to change the motorcade route in Dallas" to bring it closer to the Book Depository (where Oswald had been assigned to work, temporarily) and the "grassy knoll" If this re-route had not happened, the assassination would not have occurred. [Bwahahahahaha! He fell for my "kook trap."]
 
I actually have something that I can add to the loose change guide. Regarding the Rumsfeld quote to Parade magazine that a missle hit the Pentagon...

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

You mention this in the Loose change guide, but you did not mention that Parade, on September 4th 2004, had actually issued a retraction. The actual link to it no longer works, but here is the text...

The Internet, too, is a potent tool for spreading conspiracy theories. Parade found this out after Lyric Wallwork Winik interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2001. In a transcript of Winik's interview with Rumsfeld, which was published on the Department of Defense's website, Rumsfeld seemed to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 instead of a plane. It turns out that a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet.

And of course, even more obvious in reading the whole piece is that it was a transcription of an audio interview, and one with several spots where it is inaudable, possibly due to bad quality. Is it really a huge stretch to assume that a poor quality audio interview was slightly mistranscribed with "and a" put down instead of something like "as a" which sounds very similar and would put the quote in context as his only refering to the fact that the plane itself was used as a missle, an observation that has been stated by many people since the attacks?
 
I actually have something that I can add to the loose change guide. Regarding the Rumsfeld quote to Parade magazine that a missle hit the Pentagon...
AAA info, XXX! I didn't know anything about that "People" retraction, and it will definitely go into my revision (if necessary...still waiting to see what Avery does about that version.)
Thanks!
 
Now rennie is definately not geggy:

As someone who mostly lurks here, I'll tell you why I din't post more. It's because of how people who disagree are treated here. And I'm not saying that I mostly disagree...I just want the chance to do so about any particular point without being ridiculed or banned. It's bizarre and childish behavior. You even started a subforum for skeptics and then banned or suspended almost all the skeptics in it! WTF?

Over and over I have heard people say that the skeptics are "wasting our time." I think it's exactly the opposite. They are doing us a huge favor. Our arguments HAVE to be able to stand up to the skeptics. How will we know what the weaknesses are if we just preach to the choir? That's why I lurk at the JREF forum...to see what arguments they are making. They are tough, and we need to be even more tough in our thinking.

BEcause people were talking about it here, I read Gravy's piece on LC2. I tried to ignore the sarcasm and focus on the facts and look into the truth of them as much as possible. I have to say I was stunned at how much Dylan got wrong, and how much only takes a few minutes to check out. I know that making the video took a huge amount of effort, it's more than I could do. But I couldn't find a single example where Gravy said Dylan was wrong and Dylan turned out to be right. (I did find some examples where Gravy was wrong on his own, such as writing Paul O'Neill instead of John.)

bold mine

Sorry rennie

Reading his post, rennie seems to be the most reasonable of the LC enthusiasts. I just wonder if he himself admits seeing alot mistakes in LC, why he keeps holding on to the belief that the whole enterprise is worth fighting for.
 
Last edited:
The LC forums are not a place for discussion, as the word is commonly understood. It's just a gathering spot for like-minded enthusiasts.

Think of it as being similar to an auto chat board dedicated to, say, Hondas or Mustangs. If you want to join in and post "Hondas rule!" you'll be welcome. Suggest they might in some way actually not rule (by the way, can we get a moratorium on that word?) and you'll be shown the door. Also, something can't just "rock" -- everything else has to "suck."

The human animal: greatest show on Earth.
 
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.

Thanks very much, sleahead, and welcome to the forum. That’s one of the reasons I’m looking forward to this lawsuit too. I also enjoyed your second post very much.

Shrinker/Blinker - just after you posted at LC, I sent you a quick pm there saying "Well said, excellent post, and thanks", but since you're banned you probably didn't get it. I didn't know who you were at the time, although an image of your (awesome) JREF avatar came to mind a few times while reading your post (woooo!) – I couldn’t remember your actual ‘name’. Again, very well said.

'Unfounded Speculation Movement' – hehehe - is the abbreviation of that pronounced with a silent ‘S’, making it “UUUUUMMMMMM” (the sound they make when asked “Who did it?” and “Where are the allegedly missing passengers?”).

Nice posts btw (the ones at LC).

Thank you, Pardalis. That’s what I like about this group of 9/11 critical thinkers. There’s rarely a post goes by that’s not commented on - either to give it credit, to correct its facts or logic, or to add supporting reasearch - and that not only provides moral support but contributes to the overall quality of information.
 
Actually, I think the only question on anyone's mind at this point is, is JessicaJohnstone as hot as her multiple avatars would lead one to think she is, and if so, do you think a CT Skeptic has any chance in hell of scoring with her?

av-1609.gif


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5112&view=findpost&p=4872051
 
Actually, I think the only question on anyone's mind at this point is, is JessicaJohnstone as hot as her multiple avatars would lead one to think she is, and if so, do you think a CT Skeptic has any chance in hell of scoring with her?

[qimg]http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/upload/av-1609.gif[/qimg]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5112&view=findpost&p=4872051



I predict the south one will fall before the north.

And somebody tell her http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5112&st=30&#entry4872051

that the song 'Happy Birthday' is copyrighted.

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think the only question on anyone's mind at this point is, is JessicaJohnstone as hot as her multiple avatars would lead one to think she is, and if so, do you think a CT Skeptic has any chance in hell of scoring with her?
Ms. Johnstone could be a stone-cold foxy mama, but at some point you'd have to engage her in conversation:

JessicaJohnstone said:
is quite tearfull now, I know dylan an co is gonna get through this... this movement will not stop, god i hope they do), is upset by some off the attacks on dylan and loose change and the whole truth movement as a whole...
Mind you, that was after she edited it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom