• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I think this is worthy of a thoughtful response. First, let me start by clarifying what "character assassination" is:
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination

Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her. By its nature, it involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person.[...]
In practice, character assassination usually consists of the spreading of rumors and deliberate misinformation on topics relating to one's morals, integrity, and reputation.

Now, by that definition, I don't think what MarkyX put together qualifies as character assassination. We can discuss this aspect further if you disagree with my assessment.
Click to expand...
I'll take up your offer.

I find the wikipedia article unsatisfactory in that it says two different things. The definition mentions "deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts" in an "intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation". I am not wholly convinced that MarkyX's video does not qualify as such, even if it does not engage in "spreading rumors and deliberate misinformation".

In short, it seems that I used the term "character assassination" according to the definition given here, and people react to me as if I accused MarkyX of putting things into their mouths or spreading deliberate misinformation about the Loosers. I did not intend to accuse him of that.
Nonetheless and moreover, I intended to say that it is not a good thing to engage in character assassination in, let's call it 'the narrow sense'. I am disappointed to find that most here appear to disagree with me on that.
 
brumsen said:
I'll take up your offer.

I find the wikipedia article unsatisfactory in that it says two different things. The definition mentions "deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts" in an "intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation". I am not wholly convinced that MarkyX's video does not qualify as such, even if it does not engage in "spreading rumors and deliberate misinformation".

In short, it seems that I used the term "character assassination" according to the definition given here, and people react to me as if I accused MarkyX of putting things into their mouths or spreading deliberate misinformation about the Loosers. I did not intend to accuse him of that.
Nonetheless and moreover, I intended to say that it is not a good thing to engage in character assassination in, let's call it 'the narrow sense'. I am disappointed to find that most here appear to disagree with me on that.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example from MarkyX's production that you feel qualifies as "deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts"?
 
brumsen said:
Not really, no. But how to change that is the question.
Click to expand...

Get the message out that any attacks on the passengers or victims undermines the movement. Both Gravy and I started working against Loose Change because of the way Dylan mocked passengers such as Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer and Flight Attendant Betty Ong. I tend to think that the childish attacks (including Fetzer's claim that he would have beaten the hijackers to death with his luggage) reflect frustration over the fact that the passengers are the biggest obstacle to the CT proposed by LC and others. Hence they lash out at the passengers.
 
Brainster said:
Get the message out that any attacks on the passengers or victims undermines the movement. Both Gravy and I started working against Loose Change because of the way Dylan mocked passengers such as Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer and Flight Attendant Betty Ong. I tend to think that the childish attacks (including Fetzer's claim that he would have beaten the hijackers to death with his luggage) reflect frustration over the fact that the passengers are the biggest obstacle to the CT proposed by LC and others. Hence they lash out at the passengers.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of people who think that all the doctors on Earth can be cowed by the Big Pharma CEOs. It seems to show a low opinion of humanity in general.
 
Have you seen this ****?

Duhh here from SLC. Love this site here. This is another bunch of BS to go along with the"deep" norad coverup. This pilot claims to have seen a globalhawk hit the Pentagon. He watched LC and had to come forward. It's lighting up the board at ATS. You guys are the shizak! You guys prob saw this allready.Just trying to share. Wont let me leave url, so here it be
no www,just //vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=en/node/1534
 
Stellafane said:
Did you think it was "insane" when johndoex threatened to shoot billzilla? Did you similarly admonish him at the LC forum?
Click to expand...

Are these thread(s) still available over there? I was trying to look for posts by BillZilla and apparently either their search function sucks, or my ability to use it does. I'm OK with either one. A nice, hand-holding link would be appreciated.
 
Dog Town said:
Duhh here from SLC. Love this site here. This is another bunch of BS to go along with the"deep" norad coverup. This pilot claims to have seen a globalhawk hit the Pentagon. He watched LC and had to come forward. It's lighting up the board at ATS. You guys are the shizak! You guys prob saw this allready.Just trying to share. Wont let me leave url, so here it be
no www,just //vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=en/node/1534
Click to expand...

So FIVE YEARS after the fact they get one 'deathbed' witness who has no evidence beyond his word.

I do not think this is reliable.
 
negativ said:
Are these thread(s) still available over there? I was trying to look for posts by BillZilla and apparently either their search function sucks, or my ability to use it does. I'm OK with either one. A nice, hand-holding link would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Go to page 12 of this thread. Think it's around there somewhere.
 
Agree with ya there Kook. It is going to be used by the CTers more and more.They think they have found the mother of all witnesses, to go along with the "deep" Norad ass covering joke.
 
realitybites said:
Go to page 12 of this thread. Think it's around there somewhere.
Click to expand...

Hmm, yah.

You can do as you damn well please.. .but if you come to my land trying to push your rhetoric on me... or even try to force your rhetoric on me, i'll be extremely proud to introduce you to the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

This was in regards to him saying that Billzilla had not right to debate him since he was not an American (but listed Americans who were 'allowed', Billzilla said he'd do as he pleased. Then the above was written as a response.

So since the presumption is that he'll debate Abby, Gravy and MarkyX, at ground zero, but will shoot Billzilla if he brings those deadly and foreign 'words' to the same place.
 
Dog Town said:
Duhh here from SLC. Love this site here. This is another bunch of BS to go along with the"deep" norad coverup. This pilot claims to have seen a globalhawk hit the Pentagon. He watched LC and had to come forward. It's lighting up the board at ATS. You guys are the shizak! You guys prob saw this allready.Just trying to share. Wont let me leave url, so here it be
no www,just //vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=en/node/1534
Click to expand...

Hi Dog Town. Samuel Denner, the "new" witness, is a fraud. Well, that goes without saying, but even his son says so. The son posted to a thread on the LC forum and Russell and Merc have corresponded with him and confirmed the story. A sad story, although supposedly the dad wants to "come clean."

I'd point you to the thread at LC but I'm IP banned. You can use the search feature to find it.
 
60hzxtl said:
Here a poster claims to be Danner's son, and debunks the confession. Might be the first bit of truth from the truthers!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8567
Click to expand...

Yeah, this story stinks to high heaven. I did a little googling of Danner, and found this article by good old Christopher Bollyn:

When he got to the "crash" site, he was mystified when he did not see any luggage or parts of a 100-ton aircraft at all.
Click to expand...

If he saw a small plane with no windows, why would he be "mystified" not to see luggage or parts of a 100-ton aircraft?
 
realitybites said:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9536

The CTers are doing their usual "happy dance of joy" for this find. Anyone here have info on this?
Click to expand...

Bingham was the last person on the plane; both Flight 93 and United 93 have scenes of him dashing through the airport. IIRC, the only reason he got on the plane was the delay; they had reportedly closed the door and re-opened it to let him on.

One passenger was late. Mark Bingham had overslept and his friend, Matthew Hall, drove madly from Manhattan to Newark. They screeched to a halt outside Terminal A at 7:40. Bingham leapt from the car, lugging the old, blue-and-gold canvas bag he'd used as a rugby player at the University of California at Berkeley a decade earlier.

United attendants reopened the door to the boarding ramp and let him on the plane.
Click to expand...

Not that this will impress the "Sacred List" idiots. Also, note that none of them are remarking on the presence of the hijackers on that list.

Oh, and welcome, Dog Town!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom