Why the huge faith in LCFC?

[Mince]

They wouldn't be making a FC unless the other two versions failed, right? I know the truthers think what they have been instructed to think by a website or Uncle Alex, but even so, I don't get the universal all-in trust that LCFC is going to save the world an put the whole Bush Administration in prison. Is this the sentiment of last second desperation? The liars truthers are always placing false faith in truther projects, but this seems to be beyond ridiculous. At once this movie will wake up 120% of the population, depict 100% of the truth (LOL @ you Dylan), incarcerate the entirety of Congress, cure cancer and create world peace. Since the first two manifestations were such abhorrible jokes, how did so many thruthers get duped into believing this would be any different? Also, how did Avery dupe them into thinking this would get released in major theaters, by major distributors and major studios? If Avery knows half of what he claims to know about the industry, he has to know it's not going to get released on a major scale. Hint, Avery: If Columbia/Tri-Star hasn't contacted you yet, they are not going to.

Don't be afraid truthers. Answer me. Why the great euphoria about this less than spectacular effort?



ETA: Do you even know why you have such faith in LCFC?

 

[Brainache]

Well Mince the short answer is that Truthers are not real bright.

 

[uk_dave]

Coz....coz....it has Charlie Sheen doing the talky bit.

 

[jhunter1163]

Even the movie's distributor doesn't believe it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78128

 

[Hyperviolet]

Bit reluctant to answer this one as i don't want to come across as defensive of Loose Change. The film has some woeful claims. However, i'd add that Dylan *seems* to have ditched the more left-field theories and is going for a more Press For Truth approach. Obviously it is exciting for someone like me, a skeptic of the official version of 9/11, for a film to be released which without doubt will stimulate more discussion and points of view on both sides of the topic.

I'd like to add that this nonsense of "oh why is there 3 versions of 'the truth'.." is completely hypocritical. It is not wrong to abandon previous theories and change your point of view. Look at NIST, by using the said logic, they are also wrong. Seen as they had more than more stab at uncovering what happened.

 

[The Doc]

Bit reluctant to answer this one as i don't want to come across as defensive of Loose Change. The film has some woeful claims. However, i'd add that Dylan *seems* to have ditched the more left-field theories and is going for a more Press For Truth approach. Obviously it is exciting for someone like me, a skeptic of the official version of 9/11, for a film to be released which without doubt will stimulate more discussion and points of view on both sides of the topic.

I'd like to add that this nonsense of "oh why is there 3 versions of 'the truth'.." is completely hypocritical. It is not wrong to abandon previous theories and change your point of view. Look at NIST, by using the said logic, they are also wrong. Seen as they had more than more stab at uncovering what happened.

Yeah but NIST didn't exactly accuse people of murder did they?

 

[Hyperviolet]

Yeah but NIST didn't exactly accuse people of murder did they?

That is not the point. The point is changing your point of view has no bearing on the reliability of your current stance. In fact, is it very natural in an investigation or scientific testing.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'd like to add that this nonsense of "oh why is there 3 versions of 'the truth'.." is completely hypocritical. It is not wrong to abandon previous theories and change your point of view. Look at NIST, by using the said logic, they are also wrong. Seen as they had more than more stab at uncovering what happened.

i think its more of an issue of pointing out the arrogance of truthers, NIST never claimed its working theories were 100% true, while the LC boys and 90% of the truth movement has claimed all 3 versions of LC to the gospel truth, and only recently did they admit there were errors (although they tend to downplay those quotes now) and they continue to claim the 4th version will be 100% truth again (despite the fact that identical claims about thhe first 3 films proved to be false)

 

[Freddy]

It is not wrong to abandon previous theories and change your point of view. Look at NIST, by using the said logic, they are also wrong. Seen as they had more than more stab at uncovering what happened.

Funny, that is exactly the reason truthers tend to cite for rejecting the official story. They certainly never explain what is wrong with the NIST report.

 

[DavidJames]

I rarely frequent the LC forums anymore and have no clue what will be in LCFC. But I think it's safe to say it won't have any new, earth shattering, rock our world, smoking guns or we would have heard about them already.

So what will it be? A rehashing, reshaping, refocused presentation of the same old crud, maybe gussied up a bit. Lipstick on a pig as the saying goes.

Why the faith? To the LC crew, it's their holy grail, their bible.

 

[Pardalis]

You can't possibly compare the NIST's investigation into the collapse of the towers to the Dylan and co. amateur investigation in Loose Change. Please.

 

[Hyperviolet]

i think its more of an issue of pointing out the arrogance of truthers, NIST never claimed its working theories were 100% true, while the LC boys and 90% of the truth movement has claimed all 3 versions of LC to the gospel truth, and only recently did they admit there were errors (although they tend to downplay those quotes now) and they continue to claim the 4th version will be 100% truth again (despite the fact that identical claims about thhe first 3 films proved to be false)

The fact of the matter is Dylan Avery has recognised that there are errors and dubious claims in his previous films. Also there are people in the truth movement who completely disagree with the assertions made in Loose Change. In fact, i believe a 'pro-truth' website called WTC7.net (or something to that effect) virtually slated Loose Change in a lot of its assertions.

Lets say, hypothetically, that LCFC has new evidence which really is irrefutable (that word gets used to loosely in the truth movement, but lets assume its accurate here). It would be illogical to dismiss this purely on the base that previous versions of the film were inaccurate. Likewise, NIST should not be dismissed purely on the basis that they have had more than one version, as some truthers wrongly claim. Example being, Luke Rudowski (sp?) saying to Mark Roberts "but NIST keep changing their story."

 

[The Doc]

That is not the point. The point is changing your point of view has no bearing on the reliability of your current stance. In fact, is it very natural in an investigation or scientific testing.

NIST did not make any conclusions until their investigation was complete. They never once said "This is why the towers collapsed" until their investigation was complete. Sure, things changed. That does not, however, mean that NIST "got it wrong" or burdened anyone with their initial hypothesis.

LC, on the other hand, concluded that the US Government was complicit in the murder of nearly 3,000 US citizens in their first edition. They had made their conclusions, and altered their supporting "evidence" as each part was debunked. They will do the same in the Final Cut.

The point is, NIST conducted a scientific investigation to determine why the World Trade Centers had collapsed. Nothing was official until the final report was released in October 2005. LC used faulty and incorrect evidence to make their initial conclusions. When their conclusions weren't backed up by facts, they came up with more faulty evidence. LC presented their "findings" as a concluded statement of fact, and has since changed their views many times.

You are being incredibly narrow minded on this issue. It's a simple issue as far as I am concerned.

 

[Hyperviolet]

You can't possibly compare the NIST's investigation into the collapse of the towers to the Dylan and co. amateur investigation in Loose Change. Please.

I did not compare the NIST report to the conclusions in Loose Change. I did not mention one claim from each to compare, in fact.

I am purely addressing logic.

 

[Pardalis]

Loose Change has no overall theory. Loose Change has countless errors in it, conflicting ones. But yet they claim that 9/11 was an "inside job". they have a conclusion based on nothing of factual value.

The NIST Report is clear, it's conclusion is based on hard data, their theory works and has been peer reviewed and accepted.

Did the NIST report's conclusion change in the past 3 years?

 

[Hyperviolet]

NIST did not make any conclusions until their investigation was complete. They never once said "This is why the towers collapsed" until their investigation was complete. Sure, things changed. That does not, however, mean that NIST "got it wrong" or burdened anyone with their initial hypothesis.

LC, on the other hand, concluded that the US Government was complicit in the murder of nearly 3,000 US citizens in their first edition. They had made their conclusions, and altered their supporting "evidence" as each part was debunked. They will do the same in the Final Cut.

The point is, NIST conducted a scientific investigation to determine why the World Trade Centers had collapsed. Nothing was official until the final report was released in October 2005. LC used faulty and incorrect evidence to make their initial conclusions. When their conclusions weren't backed up by facts, they came up with more faulty evidence. LC presented their "findings" as a concluded statement of fact, and has since changed their views many times.

You are being incredibly narrow minded on this issue. It's a simple issue as far as I am concerned.

So if LCFC has irrefutable evidence (i highly doubt it will), you will dismiss it because other versions of the movie were inaccurate. Rather than addressing the new evidence.

That is incredibly narrow minded.

 

[Disbelief]

They wouldn't be making a FC unless the other two versions failed, right? I know the truthers think what they have been instructed to think by a website or Uncle Alex, but even so, I don't get the universal all-in trust that LCFC is going to save the world an put the whole Bush Administration in prison. Is this the sentiment of last second desperation? The liars truthers are always placing false faith in truther projects, but this seems to be beyond ridiculous. At once this movie will wake up 120% of the population, depict 100% of the truth (LOL @ you Dylan), incarcerate the entirety of Congress, cure cancer and create world peace. Since the first two manifestations were such abhorrible jokes, how did so many thruthers get duped into believing this would be any different? Also, how did Avery dupe them into thinking this would get released in major theaters, by major distributors and major studios? If Avery knows half of what he claims to know about the industry, he has to know it's not going to get released on a major scale. Hint, Avery: If Columbia/Tri-Star hasn't contacted you yet, they are not going to.

Don't be afraid truthers. Answer me. Why the great euphoria about this less than spectacular effort?



ETA: Do you even know why you have such faith in LCFC?

Avery has faith in LCFC because he is banking on it. If he is so sure about his claims, he should donate every cent he has made to the families of the victims.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The fact of the matter is Dylan Avery has recognised that there are errors and dubious claims in his previous films. Also there are people in the truth movement who completely disagree with the assertions made in Loose Change. In fact, i believe a 'pro-truth' website called WTC7.net (or something to that effect) virtually slated Loose Change in a lot of its assertions.

when LC:2E first came out it was pretty much the entire truth movement, at least the entire truth movement that made itself known, many MANY people claimed it was inerrant, even after it was admitted (once, possibly by accident) that it had errors many still refuse believe it has errors

Lets say, hypothetically, that LCFC has new evidence which really is irrefutable (that word gets used to loosely in the truth movement, but lets assume its accurate here).

exactly, it gets attached to every single new peice of evidence they have, why should we assume it ever accurate?

It would be illogical to dismiss this purely on the base that previous versions of the film were inaccurate. Likewise, NIST should not be dismissed purely on the basis that they have had more than one version, as some truthers wrongly claim. Example being, Luke Rudowski (sp?) saying to Mark Roberts "but NIST keep changing their story."

it would also be illogical not to be highly critical of a group who claims their 4th film is 100% accurate when identical claims attached to the release of the first 3 films turned out to be false

NIST never attached any claims to accuracy to their preliminary theories

 

[The Doc]

The fact of the matter is Dylan Avery has recognised that there are errors and dubious claims in his previous films. Also there are people in the truth movement who completely disagree with the assertions made in Loose Change. In fact, i believe a 'pro-truth' website called WTC7.net (or something to that effect) virtually slated Loose Change in a lot of its assertions.

Dylan has confirmed that there are errors in the film. Please note, however, that he has failed to retract any of his claims based on these errors.

Lets say, hypothetically, that LCFC has new evidence which really is irrefutable (that word gets used to loosely in the truth movement, but lets assume its accurate here). It would be illogical to dismiss this purely on the base that previous versions of the film were inaccurate.

That is not the point of this thread.

What is being said is that it would be "illogical" to even think that Dylan and Co. are even capable of creating a factual film based on their past examples. It's being said that truthers should not place faith in LC:FC based on the admitted errors and faulty claims that we have seen in the past 100,000 versions of Loose Change.

If Loose Change does bring some new "evidence" to the table, you can be sure that we will deal with the evidence. No one here will say "They got the 2nd Edition wrong, so this must be wrong". That would be a logical fallacy in the form of an ad hominem fallacy now, wouldn't it?

Likewise, NIST should not be dismissed purely on the basis that they have had more than one version, as some truthers wrongly claim. Example being, Luke Rudowski (sp?) saying to Mark Roberts "but NIST keep changing their story."

I'm glad we agree on this issue.

 

[The Doc]

So if LCFC has irrefutable evidence (i highly doubt it will), you will dismiss it because other versions of the movie were inaccurate. Rather than addressing the new evidence.

That is incredibly narrow minded.

Please point out where I said that or withdraw your claim.