Loose Change - Part III

[Gravy]

Why do you keep posting their crap, giving them constant commercial air time ?

This is clearly a dis-imfo op and you're giving them Commercial Air time.


Its all very clear now.



Sentinel

You need to upgrade to JREF 2006.3. It's commercial-free!

 

[Bronze Dog]

One thing I find funny is that CTers always seem to think that governments are monolithic entities. We have two major political parties full of internal conflicts, politicians complaining about other politicians receiving $20 gifts, multiple organizations all fighting for funding, etcetera, and yet, somehow they all come together and agree that killing nearly 3,000 people and covering it up with a Goldbergian conspiracy is an effective way to... what was it they were supposed to be up to, again?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You need to upgrade to JREF 2006.3. It's commercial-free!

I've also had good luck with JREF Satellite radio.

 

[MarkyX]

Gravy, I have to be honest. DJLegacy utterly destroyed your Viewers Guide to Loose Change with his debunk. All of your "information" is debunked with hard-hitting facts that are not backed up by any sources (but I am sure he used some). He shows that you were completely wrong with rebuttals such as




Well, at least someone gave it the old college try. He just went to a bad college. I don't think that was DJLegacy, though, or did I miss something? Interesting that he doesn't think that the conclusions of experts who were involved in the 9/11 investigation should be given more weight than the opinions of non-experts who were not involved.

He doesn't seem to understand the context of several of my statements. The last quote above is a good example. I was referring to the insurance company, not to Larry Silverstein.

That reply was similar to the emails I get from CTs who aren't Loosers. "Yes, Loose Change is a piece of crap and bravo to you for proving it. But why do you neglect to say that flight 93 was shot down?"

Don't worry, I got your back on this idiot

Still need feedback, because I want to post it on the main site.

 

[Apollyon]

One thing I find funny is that CTers always seem to think that governments are monolithic entities. We have two major political parties full of internal conflicts, politicians complaining about other politicians receiving $20 gifts, multiple organizations all fighting for funding, etcetera, and yet, somehow they all come together and agree that killing nearly 3,000 people and covering it up with a Goldbergian conspiracy is an effective way to... what was it they were supposed to be up to, again?

Bah. That two-party stuff is just there to throw everyone off the trail.

Rove, Cheney, Kerry, and Pelosi are probably in the vast underground complex of Bohemian Grove right now clinking together lead crystal glasses full of baby's blood and laughing uproariously at their duping of the sheeple.

 

[Gravy]

Anybody read this yet? It's from an article called "Professors of Paranoia? Academics give a scholarly stamp to 9/11 conspiracy theories" By JOHN GRAVOIS -- Chicago -- Chronicle of Higher Education -- June 23, 2006
http://chronicle.com

Good article. Thanks for the link. I love the fact that Fetzer has never seen 911myths.com, but he thinks it must be disinfo.

 

[Gravy]

Debunking the Debunker.

Need feedback.

http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/debunking_the_debunker.htm

Good job. He really makes some wild assumptions and doesn't present supporting evidence. I get a big kick out of this comment:

Gravy: "What the various explosions reported would have to do with CD, I don’t know."

Debunker: "Controlled demolition usually involves bombs. I don't find the reports of bombs exploding at the time of jetliner impact to be convincing, either, but it is this section that you really work at being stupid."

​

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Good article. Thanks for the link. I love the fact that Fetzer has never seen 911myths.com, but he thinks it must be disinfo.

Yeah, no observational/confirmation bias going on there.

 

[JamesB]

LOL You gotta love the intro.

LC2E is far too speculative. I greatly dislike the style in which it casts suspicion on the passangers of the flights, or at least on the fact that they ever made phone calls. I think that its heavy emphasis on the Pentagon strike is most unfortunate. (For the record, I believe that all four flights, AA11, UA175, UA93 and almost certainly AA77 as well, were involved in the attacks, including impacts.) I do not contest the grievous factual errors in the third of the film that deals with the Pentagon, especially the following:

"the impact hole was 16 feet wide"
"9ft of concrete had to be penetrated"
"an A3 SkyWarrior hit the Pentagon"
"no or very little wreckage was found"
"blue tarp covered evidence"
"markings on grass could have been attack guidance"

And even in the text he concedes other things wrong with the movie. OK, other than this really long list of things factually incorrect in the movie... there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

LOL You gotta love the intro.


And even in the text he concedes other things wrong with the movie. OK, other than this really long list of things factually incorrect in the movie... there is nothing wrong with it.

[hippy voice|Dennis Hopper]
You gotta understand, maan! We're just asking questions, maaaan. The movie is supposed to make you think, maaan. It doesn't need to be right, as long as it gets you to ask questions, maaan.
[/hippy voice|Dennis Hopper]

 

[pgwenthold]

Gravy: "What the various explosions reported would have to do with CD, I don’t know."

Debunker: "Controlled demolition usually involves bombs. I don't find the reports of bombs exploding at the time of jetliner impact to be convincing, either, but it is this section that you really work at being stupid."

Actually, the criticism here is not really that far-fetched, and I suspect it is an issue of brevity. If you don't know what explosions have to do with CD, then you are being stupid. Of course, that's not what you mean, here, but in the quote, it comes off that way.

Yeah, it's trivial to dismiss the explosions as having any meaning at all, but it is not done out of hand, and takes some explaining. It's a common problem in these types of things. It's easy to throw out a bunch of random comments that seem significant, but the refutation of each is a long process.

In this case, I think the better approach is to not question the relationship between explosions and CD, but to focus on establishing the relationship between explosions and non-CD. If you want to be blunt, something like "Are they suggesting that explosions would not occur during the falling of the building without CD? " and then go on to explain all the possibilities.

 

[JamesB]

Wow, the Loosers are cocky for people completely without substance.

Dylan, this is exactly the type of response that could be avoided if you'd just face Roberts squarely. Those of us who are already familiar with what you're about know this hit-piece is a joke, but people who aren't look at this thing as though it brings up legitimate concerns, and then they look back to you to see how you respond, and when you respond with it's not worth your time, it makes the concerns seem all the more legitimate.

agree with broadlinger that you're not responsible for leading others to the truth, and whatever you do is your own choice and people can take it or leave it, but for your own sake and for your reputation within and outside of the Truth Movement I think you should sit down with Jason and Korey and pore over Roberts' documents and get intimately familiar with them and figure out how you're going to respond because you're going to hear it echoed more and more everywhere you go because these things are spreading far and wide and the skeptics are getting more and more vocal and visible.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6602&st=90

 

[chipmunk stew]

Speaking of lacking substance, check out this thread of irony about Steven Jones' surprising revelation that he has acquiring a physical sample from WTC that, according to his analysis, shows clear evidence of Thermate:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6763

A sampling:

Good scientists are always cautious. Thats why they make bad politicians.

I've listened to interviews with him and I got the impression that he considered it preliminary because he was waiting for peer review of his results.

Highlights the difference between NIST "scientists" and a real scientist.

 

[JamesB]

Huh? Weren't they just complaining that the NIST reports are taking so long? All those trained experts in structural engineers and fire safety just don't know what they are doing I guess.

 

[Gravy]

In this case, I think the better approach is to not question the relationship between explosions and CD, but to focus on establishing the relationship between explosions and non-CD. If you want to be blunt, something like "Are they suggesting that explosions would not occur during the falling of the building without CD? " and then go on to explain all the possibilities.

Yes, I had done that, and the debunker didn't take that into account. In the quote above I was talking about the issue of random explosions being heard over a period of an hour: what could they have to do with CD?

What struck me about his reply is his assertion that bombs are used in CD work.

 

[Belz...]

Unbeliavable. Hello, insurance fraud?

Ah, yes. I can see it from here.

Insurance company president: "HAHAHAHAHA!! once the twin towers is gone, we'll get all the money!!"
Employee: "Sir, won't WE have to pay for that ?"
Insurance company president: "Mouahahahahahah!!"

Or, simply put:

Step 1 : Destruction of the WTC
Step 2 : ?
Step 3 : Profit.

 

[Belz...]

Bah. That two-party stuff is just there to throw everyone off the trail.

Rove, Cheney, Kerry, and Pelosi are probably in the vast underground complex of Bohemian Grove right now clinking together lead crystal glasses full of baby's blood and laughing uproariously at their duping of the sheeple.

Nice try, but no. I'd know about that.

 

[Belz...]

[hippy voice|Dennis Hopper]
You gotta understand, maan! We're just asking questions, maaaan. The movie is supposed to make you think, maaan. It doesn't need to be right, as long as it gets you to ask questions, maaan.
[/hippy voice|Dennis Hopper]

Alternatively, replace Dennis Hopper with Dylan Avery and change the "maaan"'s by "I mean"s.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Or, simply put:

Step 1 : Destruction of the WTC
Step 2 : ?
Step 3 : Profit.

 

[Belz...]

"agree with broadlinger that you're not responsible for leading others to the truth"

Notice how they phrase things like religious nuts: "leading others to the truth".