Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Yes, and the national 911truth.org is trying to get "civil disobedience" going at theaters, i.e. getting arrested. I'm going to bring a lawn chair and watch.
Loose Change - Part III
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
- Status
True civil disobedience requires that you take your punishment and not whine about it.
Bet they can't manage that.
They might go to ground zero and catch cancer:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8397
or Gypsy who has 'odd' ideas about what free speech entails, or seems to think that google video is required by law to post her videos, and videos that violate other's copyrights:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8447
Well, surely one may be forced to accept things while one denounces them at the same time as unacceptable? Unacceptable and illegal are obviously not the same thing.
I was surprised to see a comment here saying in effect "oh well it's hardly a death threat so it's OK"; I think it is not OK. Barrett is right to protest against it. And so should others.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
You're mischaracterizing a comment here. Pointing out that it's not a threat, and that it comes from a "blowhard," is not condoning the statement.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I see that what I now refer to as the LC Investigators And Researchers (LIAR) will be at the opening of the WTC movie. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to ask a LIAR a few questions. I'm not sanguine about changing any minds since most LIARs appear to be very firmly wedded to their version of reality but I still think it'd be worth the trip to ground zero (since it's only about an hour's drive anyway). Plus there'd be movie popcorn and the chance to watch a LIAR get taken to jail. A good value for your entertainment dollar.
Also, as far as who benefits from 9/11, I met my wife in a chat room while searching desperately for news that day.. so I guess you can say that I did benefit.. although I did also lose three close friends that day. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....
Also, as far as who benefits from 9/11, I met my wife in a chat room while searching desperately for news that day.. so I guess you can say that I did benefit.. although I did also lose three close friends that day. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....
JamesB
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,152
I saw that, she wants to sue them for violating her rights to free speech. Since when was someone else required by law to provide a commercial service to you for free? I am going to sue the NY Times since they won't run my essays on the front page whenever I ask.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
From Screw Loose Change, here's the letter from Barrett to John Kerry that was referred to above. Brumsen, care to comment on the "level of discourse" displayed here?
p.s. I'd like to see his figures that show Kerry winning the election with 53% of the vote.
p.s. I'd like to see his figures that show Kerry winning the election with 53% of the vote.
I tried to upload the history channel documents for Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamburg Cell but got denied for copyright reasons.
Can I sue too
Context is everything -
You can sue.
But you probably will not win.
Similarly, I can saw a woman in two - putting her back together? ah, now that's a trick!
Longfellow
St. Louis Cardinals Fanatic
How do.
How do.
First post. I just wanted to thank the fine folks here at this forum for all they do in trying to counter the self-proclaimed 'truth movement'.
I am a retired (medically) factory worker who is also an amateur historian and freelance writer. I did manage to read every post in this thread (every post of all three parts, I should say) and I am, without a doubt, flaggergasted at the dichotomy displayed in many, if not most, of the arguments put for by the 'truth' movement. History revisionists might be a more accurate portrayal.
This place is like a fresh breeze on a muggy summer day and I hope to be able to contribute somewhat (though, not nearly as prolifically as some) in the future.
How do.
First post. I just wanted to thank the fine folks here at this forum for all they do in trying to counter the self-proclaimed 'truth movement'.
I am a retired (medically) factory worker who is also an amateur historian and freelance writer. I did manage to read every post in this thread (every post of all three parts, I should say) and I am, without a doubt, flaggergasted at the dichotomy displayed in many, if not most, of the arguments put for by the 'truth' movement. History revisionists might be a more accurate portrayal.
This place is like a fresh breeze on a muggy summer day and I hope to be able to contribute somewhat (though, not nearly as prolifically as some) in the future.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Welcome, longfellow. A well-spoken/written introductory post.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,358
Welcome, Longfellow! You have already learned the most important lesson about the CT crowd. Very few of them are legitimately interested in the "Truth".
JamesB
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,152
I think Gravy is the most qualified to respond to this one:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13085#13085
I'd say: extremely rude, but not violent or threatening.
I found Loose Change interesting. Sure they weakened their case for conspiracy by taking a kitchen sink approach to 911 skepticism. They'd have been much more effective if they stuck with their strongest argument, such as that the WTC may have been brought down by controlled demolitions, or that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a large passenger jet flown by inexperienced terrorists.
The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.
Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.
The auters of Loose Change were at their weakest claiming that one of the WTC jets was modified at the bottom to fire a missle at the WTC prior to impact (why complicate the narrative with that), and at their very weakest claiming that all the calls ostensibly made by passengers on the Pennsylvannia jet to family were made by people other than the names on the flight manifest.
Having said that, I don't think it's preprosterous to the skeptical mind that their could be some elements of U.S. government complicity and involvement in 911, from a variety of angles. As members of an ostensibly free society, we can do more with our freedom to think than knock down easy strawmen like the silliest parts of the Loose Change video.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
What would you say is (and please be specific) LC's, or any CT's, strongest point to gov't involvement in the attacks?
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I found it absurd and bordering on the offensive, but maybe that's just me. Avery and his ilk are in the business of rabble-rousing, and the better they are at it and the more attention they draw to their "cause" the more DVDs they sell.
Their evidence is flimsy at best and concocted at worst. And, when confronted with massive piles of facts and eyewitness statements that contradict their claims, they fall back on the "we're just asking questions" defense.
It's certainly fair enough to ask questions about possible goverment involvement in 9-11, and if the CTs could come up with a theory THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE I'd be willing to take a look at it. But, sadly, you won't find such a theory in Loose Change.
Their evidence is flimsy at best and concocted at worst. And, when confronted with massive piles of facts and eyewitness statements that contradict their claims, they fall back on the "we're just asking questions" defense.
It's certainly fair enough to ask questions about possible goverment involvement in 9-11, and if the CTs could come up with a theory THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE I'd be willing to take a look at it. But, sadly, you won't find such a theory in Loose Change.
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
I think the problem here is that plausibility is a far cry from proof, but that seems to be all it takes to throw around serious allegations and to repeatedly defile the names of the innocent people who did die as a result of the actions on 9/11. To date, there has been 0 evidence to support any of the claims made in Loose Change. Therefore there has been no reason to take any of the claims seriously.
The single strongest point, if true, is their claim that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, and as part of that their claim that fires have burned significantly longer, and over a significantly greater number of floors, in the recent past.
The second strongest point I thought is that it would be extremely difficult to fly a large passenger jet plane into the Pentagon, that it would make a significantly larger hole than it did, and that we would have significantly more publicly available video and photographic evidence of the large passenger plane flying into the Pentagon.
Have these 2 points already been thoroughly debunked on this thread or elsewhere?
Although this isn't part of their argument, I also have an open mind about the weakest possible version of a 911 conspiracy narrative: the "Pearl Harbor" angle, that the leadership elements of the Administration may have known specifically that Al Quaida was planning on striking in the United States and chose to allow it to happen, so as to move things in a straussian and PNAC direction for the political and economic benefit of their primary constituencies (a terrorist attack making the population more conservative, helping Republicans, and boosting energy sector and defense sector shares of the economy).
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Yes, maybe not on part 3 but on the prior threads and several other threads as well. You really have to be ignoring the evidence, or simply ignorant of it, to believe otherwise IMO.
Is it possible? Sure! Again, plausibility does not constitute proof. Therefore it is unlikely to change anyone's mind on the forum.
- Status