"Screw Loose Change Debunked"

[gumboot]

SO I am hearing the phrase "9/11: Press for the Truth" being thrown around alot. They claim it is "Undebunkable" (is that a word). Has anyone watched it? If so, is it that good that noone can, or at least, tried to debunk it?

TAM

There's a thread about it. It's garbage. Actually it's a little tragic. It has the four 9/11 widows who were instrumental in creating the 9/11 commission. I'm not sure if they're CTers, or just being grossly misused - they seem mainly to talk about the commission not giving them the answers they want. The doco itself adds in your usual BS CT claims...

Actually... even some of the widows make these claims... like the "no military aircraft were scrambled" thing.

Then the doco goes on to attack the press for not "connecting the dots" (in other words ignoring all the false blips and dead-end stories that surround an event like 9/11). Then it has a very odd conclusion that isn't really supported by the facts.

Basically it's a weaker version of LC - a few vague mentions of standard CT fare, with a big chunk on how the ebil commission didn't do its job, ending with a rant about the ebil media.

Or something.

Loose Change and Terrorstorm are both technically better made/edited/structured documentaries.

I really would be curious to find out more about what these widows think though. Mostly it seems they were on a witch hunt, and were pissed that the commission didn't give them anyone to burn. But every now and then there's a few comments that have the distinct aroma of CT about them.

-Andrew

 

[MarkyX]

question for MarkyX :

would you be willing to join a lawsuit against the Loose Change producers?

and testify in court?

Ehhhhh...

I'm not exactly a great public speaker, even if it is in court.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There's a thread about it. It's garbage. Actually it's a little tragic. It has the four 9/11 widows who were instrumental in creating the 9/11 commission. I'm not sure if they're CTers, or just being grossly misused - they seem mainly to talk about the commission not giving them the answers they want. The doco itself adds in your usual BS CT claims...

-Andrew

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

I concur. I know that at least one of them was on the Kerry bandwagon, so it's presumed she could get snookered into any Anti-George movement, but notice that most of the CT accusations are voice-overs, not their own words. I listened to the entire Larry King interview with the "lead" voice and she never once espoused any CT nonsense.

I think she has an anti-Bush agenda, for certain. But I haven't read anything in interviews that indicates any CT slant. She's written a book, and I'd assume the CTers would be quoting it like mad if she made any such statements.

 

[T.A.M.]

I wonder how the widows feel about all the CT nonsense. It is funny that the CTers are going around telling us to debunk this one, cause it suppose to be the best film out hter...undebunkable...lol

I think the reason they are saying it, is that they are banking on us holding back because the widows are a part of it. Kind of reminds me of they gunman who picks up a child and uses the child as a shield.

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

Wow..that was really bad. It was a lot of 'well my one and only expert says that all you relevant, informed experts are wrong!'.

The 'My Take' sums it all up. Its just his poor opinion.

 

[LashL]

Regarding the Press for Truth video:

It's actually quite boring and does not include much, if anything, new at all. I thought it was a snoozefest, frankly, mostly consisting of years-old information, but with some recent stuff on those particular 4 widows and the father of one of the victims added for the 5th anniversary "debut".

It did not even bother to update numerous references to old news stories that have long since been updated in the real world and no longer reflect the "reality" that the video is trying to promote. Also, it is inherently analytically flawed as it uses published mainstream news stories to try to demonstrate that mainstream news sources did not cover the story.

Plus, watching Paul Thompson gave me a neck-ache with all of his head bobbing, head shaking, and leaning to one side all the time. Kind of like a bobblehead doll. (Edit to add: if there is some medical condition that causes him to do that, I'll apologize, but in the absence of any information on that front, it sure is annoying to watch.)

 

[T.A.M.]

There is a condition called "benign dystonia" which does cause someone to have the symptoms that you describe, but that doesnt mean he has the condition.

In your comments, though Lash, you have provided me with the answer...

The reason they consider this doc, the doc to beat, is in the name "Paul Thompson"

Apparently he is the "intellectual" CTers (I know, an oxymoron) Dylan Avery.

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The reason they consider this doc, the doc to beat

is because its new and no one has gotten around to debunking it yet

next week it will be debunked and the CT crowd will be touting the next flavor of the month

 

[LashL]

There is a condition called "benign dystonia" which does cause someone to have the symptoms that you describe, but that doesnt mean he has the condition.

In your comments, though Lash, you have provided me with the answer...

The reason they consider this doc, the doc to beat, is in the name "Paul Thompson"

Apparently he is the "intellectual" CTers (I know, an oxymoron) Dylan Avery.

TAM

Oh, boy. If this guy is the "intellectual" among them, they are even worse off than I thought.

And thanks for the medical insight, btw, on benign dystonia. I wonder if he suffers from that or whether he's just a nervous guy who bobs and weaves physically as much as CTers bob and weave intellectually. I will have to ponder how best to diplomatically ask him about that via email.

 

[gumboot]

The reason they consider this doc, the doc to beat, is in the name "Paul Thompson"

Apparently he is the "intellectual" CTers (I know, an oxymoron) Dylan Avery.

His sole work is "The Complete 9/11 Timeline". It has over 2,000 entries. I've read the entire thing.

It's an excellent piece of research, overall, but it's a pity he lets his own pre-concieved opinions cloud his work. In addition, there's far too much speculation in his timeline - he'll present a rumour and give it the same status as a confirmed event.

Also, as I just noticed, he has a "blurb" about NORAD before his timeline of 9/11 itself, and this section repeats some of the common false CT claims - intercepts are regularly undertaken in a matter of minutes, 67 intercepts, blah blah blah.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

And thanks for the medical insight, btw, on benign dystonia. I wonder if he suffers from that or whether he's just a nervous guy who bobs and weaves physically as much as CTers bob and weave intellectually.

For what it's worth, in my experience most people who are not comfortable or familiar with being on camera do this.

-Andrew

 

[David Wong]

For what it's worth, in my experience most people who are not comfortable or familiar with being on camera do this.

-Andrew

You have to hold your head unnaturally still when you're on camera, because you have this invisible frame around your face. Even the normal act of leaning back to relax or leaning forward in your chair to listen can send your face out of frame and make you look ridiculous.

Everybody remember this if you're ever on camera. Also, let them put the makeup on you.

 

[NickUK]

Remember that Hunter (S.Thompson) is making a logical analyse. Such is not a very unusuall thing in respected docummentaries. So, I don’t know why Loose Change shouldn’t include it.

That made me laugh my [rule]ing ass off in 3 different ways

Comedy gold, boys, comedy gold