• 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.
steve s said:
So now the troofers are skeptical. Why shouldn't they believe him? After all, they believe someone detonated the buildings. When confronted with the insanity of their beliefs they suddenly seem capable of rationality.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

They believe Larry Silverstein casually admitting to ordering the buildings demolished, why not some guy on an Internet forum?
 
David Wong said:
Wait.. seriously? What rule of theirs did that violate?

Was that a stupid question?
Click to expand...

Any post that doesn't pander to the lockstep LC and the conspiracy of the week results in "Extreme Moderation"

There is no dissent allowed at LC and if you don't agree you are an "Enemy of the TRUTH"
 
David Wong said:
Wait.. seriously? What rule of theirs did that violate?

Was that a stupid question?
Click to expand...

No not really, my first post simply linked your article which provoked a few responses. I think it was my second post that put the lid on things. I don’t think they like been called a bunch of loonies.

But hey it was fun while it lasted. :)
 
stateofgrace said:
No not really, my first post simply linked your article which provoked a few responses. I think it was my second post that put the lid on things. I don’t think they like been called a bunch of loonies.

But hey it was fun while it lasted. :)
Click to expand...

The harsh light of real "Truth" burns their eyes.
 
The person who set the charges at the Towers decides to admit it on the Loose Change Forums.
Click to expand...
I didn't get to see it, and apparently the post is gone now. Anyone care to post a screen cap, or at least a detailed synopsis? It sounds very tasty.:cool:
 
negativ said:
I didn't get to see it, and apparently the post is gone now. Anyone care to post a screen cap, or at least a detailed synopsis? It sounds very tasty.:cool:
Click to expand...

From the little bit I saw of it everyone there took it as a sick grab for attention.

Except for Killtown. He started into an investigative profile of the guys motives for participating in such a horrible act of mass murder.
 
It's funny how sceptical they become whenever unambiguous 'evidence' like this turns up. It's as if actual undeniable proof would just spoil the game, and so they have to reject it.
 
Alareth said:
Any post that doesn't pander to the lockstep LC and the conspiracy of the week results in "Extreme Moderation"

There is no dissent allowed at LC and if you don't agree you are an "Enemy of the TRUTH"
Click to expand...

Sounds remarkably like some of those muslim fundies that commited 9/11, doesn't it ?
 
Alareth said:
Any post that doesn't pander to the lockstep LC and the conspiracy of the week results in "Extreme Moderation"
Click to expand...

This inspired me to create a banner for an LC forum signature. A badge for anyone who uses it!


36174504033371510.jpg

​
 
I'm waiting for Goose Change.
A chilling expose' plucking the truth from the fowl deception of the globalist foi gras industry.
Click to expand...

Hey, that fits in with Loose Chan. It's Canada striking back. After all, the lawn carp that infest us are "Canada" geese. And we know they form in Vees to fly. They formed into the shape of 767's and they flew into the WTC carrying bombs.

Which fell down the elevators and... oh wait, the elevators were "hermetically sealed." I guess I'm just not very good at this.
 
the cat wearing a lime rind as a helmet said:
It's funny how sceptical they become whenever unambiguous 'evidence' like this turns up. It's as if actual undeniable proof would just spoil the game, and so they have to reject it.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a Holocaust Denial forum I browsed. Anything contrary, no matter how solid, was subjected to 100% proof requirements (technically impossible) and anything supporting was blindly accepted.
 
StoneWT said:
This reminds me of a Holocaust Denial forum I browsed. Anything contrary, no matter how solid, was subjected to 100% proof requirements (technically impossible) and anything supporting was blindly accepted.
Click to expand...

Actually I meant it the other way. They seem to thrive on anomalies and ambiguous quotes, but when somebody comes along with totally unambiguous 'proof' of what they've been saying all along, they become much more sceptical. It's as if they know the evidence can't be real because their claims aren't real. Like I said, proving the conspiracy once and for all would spoil their game. I saw it with that video too, with the massive explosion sound on it. Some jumped up and down (or at least their emoticons did) but many said 'er, hang on guys, let's see if its real'. That's not an attitude you see when someone finds a stray pixel in a youtube video.
 
Shrinker said:
Like I said, proving the conspiracy once and for all would spoil their game.
Click to expand...


It's the difference between building a building and trying to vandalize a building. Building a cohesive theory about what happened on 9/11 (from their perspective) is hard. You make yourself a target. You put a solid object that thinking people can disassemble piece by piece.

No, it's much better and much easier to do the "we're just asking questions" thing.

"Why do these eyewitnesses conflict?"

"Uh, because eyewitnesses always conflict in the heat of the moment?"

"Why isn't there any video of the Pentagon plane crash?"

"Because a neighboring convenience store would have no reason to point their security cameras at the Pentagon."

"Why did people at ground zero say they heard explosions?"

"Because the building above them was falling down. It makes a tremendous sound."

"Why did the Bush administration drag their feet on the 9/11 investigation?"

"Because they didn't want to be portrayed as incompetent and unprepared in an election year, and they knew the process would be politicized."

"I'm sorry, there are just too many unanswered questions here."


In other words, the fact that they have questions is their theory. And trying to attack it is like trying to break water with a hammer. And it's so dishonest because the thing they're promoting is very specific. But the moment they state it as such, "we believe the towers were brought down with ____ amount of explosives set off in _____ locations and were placed on _____ date by ______ with the cooperation of _____," it's all over for them.

Because once they try to stand by specific people and dates and times and events, the debunkers will have something solid to destroy. But as long as the CT people stay in "we're just asking question," mode, there is nothing solid to take down. They can do it forever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom