Press for truth!

Childlike Empress said:
No, it is not not the same stuff the people i call con artists are talking about.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?

25 minutes in and basically ALL I have heard is the same CT garbage.

For the record it's mainly the filmmakers making these claims. The few "CT-like" statements made by the women themselves seem to be ones that are fairly understandable if you don't know the details of the thing being discussed.

Though, having said that, I'm a little alarmed that they claim to have been researching 9/11 for years, yet make claims like that the military did nothing. My NORAD research PDF took only a week to produce.

-Andrew
 
jhunter1163 said:
Childlike:

I'm fairly new here at JREF, like you. I came here because I had heard about "Loose Change" and, while I was pretty sure its claims were bogus, I wanted to know exactly WHY they were bogus so I could discuss the movie intelligently if it ever came up in conversation. I've reviewed many thousands of posts here, both pro and con of the official story. And, in my opinion, which I know has little if any value to you, there is NO compelling evidence whatsoever of any government involvement in 9/11. ALL of the points CTers raise in support of their theories are adequately explained in other ways.

I'm not saying that there isn't a**-covering and fudging of facts in the official reports, because there surely is. When dealing with a bureaucracy, a**-covering is the watchword. Is it frustrating to me that no offcials were held responsible for the pre-9/11 intelligence failures? Sure. If those failures hadn't happened, one of my best friends would still be alive today. But the official story, complete with a**-covering, is still the best we have, and it's likely to be the best we'll ever have, because it's essentially (although not in every detail) accurate.

And, the idea that we're somehow dishonoring the victims of 9/11 by not allowing other nations to poke around in our internal affairs is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

I'm tired now. That was a lot of typing for me.
Click to expand...

Well, i heard about Loose Change after hearing about a lot of other things before. Then i found the LC Forum and became aware of the "war" between LC and JREF. After reading and learning alot here i decided to register to show the forumites that there are 9/11 Skeptics that don't buy into the "official line" of LC or the Scholars.

My statement that the people here are mocking the victims was on one hand serious (as i explained) and on the other hand provocative (opposing their over and over repeated statement that Dylan and co are mocking the victims).

@gummi: you should adjust your filters.
 
Okay,

30 minutes in and we're now on to the Complete 9/11 Timeline. A useful research tool, but it does have some major issues - for example an enormous chunk of it is pure speculation. There's also no follow-up - it will cite a news article that indicates something out of place, yet that will be a news article that turned out to be a false alarm - like the "hijackers still alive" thing.

A big part of the timeline is "warnings". Most of these have little or no significance whatsoever (the sort of thing that only has significance from the predisposed position of "inside job"). A lot of people critical of the government for ignoring the warnings dump blame on Bush, despite the fact that the vast majority of these links and so-called warnings occured during Clinton's administration. These same people show a severe lack of understanding of what constitutes "actionable intelligence". The same people would froth rabid at the mouth if a cop pulled over someone in the vicinity of a bank robbery because they were black.

-Andrew
 
Childlike Empress said:
@Oliver: He thinks your signature questions the allmighty wisdom of this forum, i think.
Click to expand...

I thought it was funny to add this after reading
in the LC-Forum, that they (secretly, i think) ask
in here first what the people in here think when
they find something new.

Here´s the Link to that Thread in the LC-Forum....
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12831

@Childlike

Hab ich da was falsch übersetzt oder wie jetzt?
Translation: Did i translate something wrong or what?

Im out - listening to the veterans as they´ve suggested....
 
Childlike Empress said:
Gravy, what in the hell are you talking about? Please point me to a post where i said anything about questioning the holocaust? This is not adding to your credibility, pal. You try to raise my blood and you know that this is a sensible topic for me. Very low.
Click to expand...
Touched a nerve, did I? Makes you mad, huh? Yes, that really was "low" of me. (ETA) And I see that you want me to prove my accusation by citing an example.

So, Childlike, it's wrong of me to make baseless accusations, but it's fine if you do the same? That's a childlike stance. Remember a similar double-standard that you applied to citing the 9/11 Commission report as evidence: that it was wrong for us but not for you? See a pattern here?

Oliver, I do not believe that Childlike is a Holocaust denier. I'm using that as a similar example to the nasty, unsupportable accusation about me that she has made. Oh, yes, I take it personally.

Oliver (please read this, Childlike), yesterday you were looking into the possibility that the explosions in the elevator shafts in the north tower could have been caused by bombs, and not by jet fuel. You asked me to get involved in the discussion. I replied with this post, which listed many reports of the explosion combined with a fireball and the smell of jet fuel, going all the way down to the lowest basement level.

The only report that I have found of someone claiming (to this day) that this explosion was caused by a bomb, is that of victim William Rodriguez.

By coincidence, today I had a long talk with Mr. Rodriguez (at right) at Ground Zero.
879045037f6498b2b.jpg

It may look as though we were arguing. We weren't! He's a very nice man, and we were having a pleasant, informative discussion.
​

While he acknowledges the fireball, the burned people in and around the elevators, and smell of jet fuel, he is convinced that there was a bomb in the lower levels. He does not have evidence of a bomb, just a VERY strong belief.

Question: am I mocking Mr. Rodriguez – a victim of the 9/11 attacks – by presenting evidence that does not support his belief?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
My statement that the people here are mocking the victims was on one hand serious (as i explained) and on the other hand provocative (opposing their over and over repeated statement that Dylan and co are mocking the victims).
Click to expand...
There's a big difference. We have – over and over – provided specific examples of them mocking victims. We didn't invent the idea. We saw them do it and called them on it. You have merely made an accusation.
 
Besides, to use the victims of 9/11 for provocation, isn't that itself disrespectful?
 
Oliver said:
Did i translate something wrong or what?
Click to expand...
No. They are CTs themselves. You have to take that to account if you want to decipher their messages. :D

Gravy said:
Touched a nerve, did I? Makes you mad, huh? Yes, that really was "low" of me.

So, Childlike, it's wrong of me to make baseless accusations, but it's fine if you do the same? That's a childlike stance. Remember a similar double-standard that you applied to citing the 9/11 Commission report as evidence: that it was wrong for us but not for you? See a pattern here?
Click to expand...
I explained my statement. You know that you "touched a nerve" here before and by now you should also know why. Stop for a moment and think about what is presented in the movie without prejudice. And keep it civil on Monday.

CU Folks.
 
Gravy said:
Question: am I mocking Mr. Rodriguez – a victim of the 9/11 attacks – by presenting evidence that does not support his belief?
Click to expand...

Hey, someone suggested to sit back and let the
Veterans talk - so stop asking me things that
burn under my nails to answer them. :-D

I did not think bad of anyone in here - i´m a
very diplomatic, friendly and peacefull man in
the thirties.

You should´nt think about willie. I like him because
it´s said that he risks his life and saved many lives,
but i never thought about you, that you´re mocking
him. I only thought that you may have your reasons
to disbeliefe him.

And to all people here - like in the LC-Forum, that
think i´m a "fencesitter" or "spy?" i have to say
this: my english is not perfect and i have big
problems to understand technical stuff, i have
problems to formulate complex questions in a way
that i think, you will understand.

And beside that: I´m not a talker at all. I share
information if i find something interesting and
i also post in here if after reading in a thread.

But i´m new to the Issue9/11 after watching
LooseChange. They did´nt like my questons
about the proofable things beside "the LC own
copyrighted Truth", so i try to find out more
in here. You guys who think i´m "whatever",
i give you this: You´re not better than the
LC Admins.

BTW: Maybe we can go back to the issue
of this thread.

I´m out to listen - so please calm down...


Oliver
 
Childlike Empress said:
No. They are CTs themselves. You have to take that to account if you want to decipher their messages. :D


I explained my statement. You know that you "touched a nerve" here before and by now you should also know why. Stop for a moment and think about what is presented in the movie without prejudice. And keep it civil on Monday.

CU Folks.
Click to expand...
I should have made it clear that my question was also addressed to you: was I mocking William Rodriguez by presenting evidence that does not support his version of events?
 
40 Minutes in and we're still on warnings. I'm going to simply respond with this excellent post by David Wong:

It's impossible to stop every conceivable method of attack. And it's awfully easy to come back after the fact and say, "WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THAT COMING?!?!?"

We didn't, because those memos warning that Osama might try to hijack planes were buried under other memos warning of cyber terrorism, or poisoning water supplies, or sneaking a nuke on board cargo boxes, or growing biological agents in a lab, or sneaking a shoulder-fired missile to a hill outside an airport, or suicide bombing a shopping mall, or filling a truck full of bombs and running it into a hotel, or...

You get the idea.
Click to expand...

50 minutes in and we get the same "no one reacted" BS. "No fighters responded" etc.

This stuff gets tired fast.

-Andrew
 
Childlike:

The "war" you talk about is between two groups who obviously hold very strong beliefs. The difference is, the JREF crowd bases their beliefs on facts, while the LC crowd bases theirs on distortions, innuendo, and the occasional outright lie. Now, you say you don't buy their line either (smart of you) but remain skeptical about the official story. Can you be a little more specific about what elements of the official story you don't buy?

Sorry if you've covered this previously, I'm even newer than you are.
 
gumboot said:
40 Minutes in and we're still on warnings. I'm going to simply respond with this excellent post by David Wong:



50 minutes in and we get the same "no one reacted" BS. "No fighters responded" etc.

This stuff gets tired fast.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Sorry: Is he watching or making propaganda against
something he does not like?

...or understand?
 
Oliver said:
Sorry: Is he watching or making propaganda against
something he does not like?

...or understand?
Click to expand...
If you read more of gumboot's posts, you'll see that he has no problem comprehending what he watches or reads. Here, he has given specific examples of what he objects to. These things have been discussed in this forum ad nauseum. If you disagree with our conclusions, please be specific about why.
 
Gravy said:
I should have made it clear that my question was also addressed to you: was I mocking William Rodriguez by presenting evidence that does not support his version of events?
Click to expand...
No, not in my opinion. Anyway, what is that strange connection between Rodriguez and Randi about? Insider information availible?

@jhunter: My main concerns are covered in this video. A different line i repeatetly tried to adress here (without resonance) is the infiltration of the "truth movement" by forces payed by the very same people that should be suspects in a criminal investigation. Feel free to use the "find more posts by..." function.
 
OK, finished it.

After the first ten minutes where it seemed to raise questions about the collapse, I started to wonder if it would fall into the CT crap about controlled demolitions. Thankfully, it did not. But that leaves me doubtful as to why they left that in, since they don't pursue the idea. Maybe it was to get our attention... :rolleyes:

All the way through, as Gumboot said about David Wong's quote, it seemed to make the logical fallacy of hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias


But even with that in mind, I acknowledge the film raises interesting questions. By the end of it, it was clear that it was pushing for the LIHOP theory, which is to me, believable but still pending proof. Did the US cover up ties between Al Qaeda and Pakistan? I simply don't know.

Maybe there should be an "international" investigation. Why not?

So OK, go ahead and make this new investigation, what are you waiting for? Why are you asking the Bush administration?

Why are you accusing the Bush administration of not doing an "international" investigation about itself????

And shouldn't you accuse them AFTER the investigation, when (and if) the investigation shows conclusive proof that the US had foreknowledge of the specific attack and covered things up?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom