"Loose Change" & Other Conspiracies Get OWNED!

24

Comments

  • So what are you two splitting hairs over now?
    Chertoff's involvement in the article?
    If he was a reporter, couldn't he have spun the article?
    As an editor, it would be even easier, b/c he'd have final say, I believe.

    from the editor wiki:
    Improving an author's writing so that they indeed say what they want to say, in an effective manner — a substantive editor. Depending on the writer's skill, this editing can sometimes turn into ghost writing. Substantive editing is seldom a title. Many types of editors do this type of work, either in-house at a publisher or on an independent basis.

    Either way....having someone related to a Bush crony heavily involved in "the definitive" article debunking the conspiracies just fuels the fire....

    No...groundless suspicion is what fuels the fire.
  • So what are you two splitting hairs over now?
    Chertoff's involvement in the article?
    If he was a reporter, couldn't he have spun the article?
    As an editor, it would be even easier, b/c he'd have final say, I believe.

    from the editor wiki:
    Improving an author's writing so that they indeed say what they want to say, in an effective manner — a substantive editor. Depending on the writer's skill, this editing can sometimes turn into ghost writing. Substantive editing is seldom a title. Many types of editors do this type of work, either in-house at a publisher or on an independent basis.

    Either way....having someone related to a Bush crony heavily involved in "the definitive" article debunking the conspiracies just fuels the fire....

    nice touch. i like your post. if you don't believe one; you're part of the conspiracy. so sit back and enjoy the show. it gets better as the day goes on.
  • if you don't believe one; you're part of the conspiracy. so sit back and enjoy the show. it gets better as the day goes on.
    I don't understand what youre saying. believe one what?
    No...groundless suspicion is what fuels the fire.

    How is it groundless? It's the most commonly referenced article about the conspiracies....and it's either written or edited by someone who could be extremely biased. It is exactly the kind of thing that creates more suspicion.
  • How is it groundless? It's the most commonly referenced article about the conspiracies....and it's either written or edited by someone who could be extremely biased. It is exactly the kind of thing that creates more suspicion.

    The suspicion already exists. Stop trying to apply fact-conclusion logic to conspiracy theories. They work backwards. Conclusions come first, then facts. If Chertoff hadn't been related to someone in the administration, something else would have been used to put this article in a negative light. Look, no one has even asked for proof that these people are direct cousins. It's just assumed that they spend every Christmas together hatching ways to dupe the American public.
  • I don't understand what youre saying. believe one what?



    How is it groundless? It's the most commonly referenced article about the conspiracies....and it's either written or edited by someone who could be extremely biased. It is exactly the kind of thing that creates more suspicion.

    sorry. if you don't believe a theory; you're part of the conspiracy. that's the way it works.
  • The suspicion already exists. Stop trying to apply fact-conclusion logic to conspiracy theories. They work backwards. Conclusions come first, then facts. If Chertoff hadn't been related to someone in the administration, something else would have been used to put this article in a negative light. Look, no one has even asked for proof that these people are direct cousins. It's just assumed that they spend every Christmas together hatching ways to dupe the American public.

    The article is about the suspicion. So for PM to allow a possibly biased person to be involved in debunking the suspicion creates more suspicion…..Besides, aren’t we doing the same thing? Reading the article with our own opinion as a critical guideline? Did you watch Loose Change without applying your own conclusions? It’s the facts that are in question, so the whole issue is chicken or the egg…if you accept the “facts” presented by the gov’t and PM, you probably believe the official report....if you question those “facts”, you’re a conspiracy nut? Of course the people that question the "facts" would look for ways to debunk the article, just like PM did with the conspiracy theorists....no one has done much digging into the other researchers/consultants either....

    And I don’t believe the official story…I don’t believe all the conspiracy theories either. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in between. Does that make me part of the conspiracy or not?
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    And I don’t believe the official story…I don’t believe all the conspiracy theories either. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in between. Does that make me part of the conspiracy or not?

    I live in NYC, and was not very far from the twin towers when the planes hit. I watched the towers crumble with my own eyes, not on a tv screen.

    There's no "story" - as a layperson with respect to science, it didn't take much thinking to understand the chain of events: planes hit buildings; extremely hot fire causes breakdown of steel holding buildings together; floors collapse on top of each other; buildings are destroyed.

    I am so sick of this nonsense. And to answer your question, when you say that the truth lies somewhere in between, yes, you are part of the conspiracy lunatic fringe.
  • Besides, aren’t we doing the same thing? Reading the article with our own opinion as a critical guideline?

    Certainly. But all opinions are not equal.
    Did you watch Loose Change without applying your own conclusions?

    The first time, yes.
    It’s the facts that are in question, so the whole issue is chicken or the egg…if you accept the “facts” presented by the gov’t and PM, you probably believe the official report....

    Yep.
    if you question those “facts”, you’re a conspiracy nut?

    Of course not. Pretending those facts don't exist is what makes someone a "conspiracy nut". Everyone should question those facts.
    Of course the people that question the "facts" would look for ways to debunk the article, just like PM did with the conspiracy theorists....no one has done much digging into the other researchers/consultants either....

    Sure they have. Much information about them is available.
    And I don’t believe the official story…I don’t believe all the conspiracy theories either. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in between. Does that make me part of the conspiracy or not?

    No, that doesn't make you part of some conspiracy. Honest questioning is not only natural but of the utmost importance.
  • jsand wrote:
    I live in NYC, and was not very far from the twin towers when the planes hit. I watched the towers crumble with my own eyes, not on a tv screen.

    There's no "story" - as a layperson with respect to science, it didn't take much thinking to understand the chain of events: planes hit buildings; extremely hot fire causes breakdown of steel holding buildings together; floors collapse on top of each other; buildings are destroyed.

    I am so sick of this nonsense. And to answer your question, when you say that the truth lies somewhere in between, yes, you are part of the conspiracy lunatic fringe.

    So let me get this straight….you watched a plane fly into a building, then the buildings fall…so you can conclusively say that none of the issues raised by the conspiracy theorists hold water, and that none of the issues omitted by the commission report are valid? I don’t think so. How was it any different (besides emotional involvement) to have watched the towers fall in person or on tv? Did seeing it in person make you a structural engineer? Did you see the steel weaken and fail? So you are just buying into one version of the story and calling me a lunatic for not completely accepting it. It doesn’t take much thinking to believe the official story either.
  • jsand wrote:
    I live in NYC, and was not very far from the twin towers when the planes hit. I watched the towers crumble with my own eyes, not on a tv screen.

    There's no "story" - as a layperson with respect to science, it didn't take much thinking to understand the chain of events: planes hit buildings; extremely hot fire causes breakdown of steel holding buildings together; floors collapse on top of each other; buildings are destroyed.

    I am so sick of this nonsense. And to answer your question, when you say that the truth lies somewhere in between, yes, you are part of the conspiracy lunatic fringe.

    i think you're right. but we have ghost chasers here and some who won't believe anything because they all know better. my grandfather used to say "never try to teach a pig to sing. it annoys the pig and wastes your time.' you're wasting your time trying to reason with someone whos mind is closed to anything other than their opinion. we know what happened so lets be happy with that.
  • you're wasting your time trying to reason with someone whos mind is closed to anything other than their opinion. we know what happened so lets be happy with that.

    That made perfect sense.
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    i think you're right. but we have ghost chasers here and some who won't believe anything because they all know better. my grandfather used to say "never try to teach a pig to sing. it annoys the pig and wastes your time.' you're wasting your time trying to reason with someone whos mind is closed to anything other than their opinion. we know what happened so lets be happy with that.

    now is that your real grandfather, or the other one from your elaborate invisible life?
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • The truth is, for us who doubt the official story, that there are a lot of things that don't add up or are too coincidental to just write this even off as fact.

    I am not out to bring down the administration, it's just these things don't add up, and because these things don't add up we have every right to wonder what really happened.

    Let's be honest, this hasn't been the most upfront and truthful administration, so why believe anything they say.
  • El_Kabong wrote:
    bush is barely told anything...i remember at christmas when they made a few cuts to programs like school loans and medicare/aid <to help pay down the deficit> at a speech a student asked him how he cares about education when he just made a big cut in student loans and bush didn't even know what she was talking about!!! he kept asking if she was sure and looking from side to side

    anyway, even rummy said a missile hit the pentagon and that the plane over pa was shot down.

    i think george bush had nothing to do w/ it. i think it was a group of ppl, tho...either they helped carry it out or they helped create a situation for it to happen...like 2 months before 9/11 they took the power away from NORAD and certain military to make a decision on what to do w/ hijacked aircraft...convenient cheney waited until right before the pentagon got hit <over an hour after they were KNOWN to be hijacked and over an hour <i believe> since the first plane hit the towers> before scrambling any jets.

    can anyone explain how it took over an hour for the military to react? 4 planes were known to be hijacked, some for over an hour...one even flew thru the no-fly zone in dc <again, over an hour after the first hit>, made a u-turn and hit hte pentagon and nothing could be done or decided? give me a break!

    if you want to believe it was all a surprise ppl should at least be mad over the mass incompitence displayed

    rumsfield said a missle hit the pentagon and the plane over PA was shot down? proof please! was there mass incompetence? certainly....was it a conspiracy? no
    The wind is blowing cold
    Have we lost our way tonight?
    Have we lost our hope to sorrow?

    Feels like were all alone
    Running further from what’s right
    And there are no more heroes to follow

    So what are we becoming?
    Where did we go wrong?
  • jsand wrote:
    I think the idea is that these theories are being promoted by a lunatic fringe element that does not deserve any time or resources being used to disprove such nonsense.

    i wouldn't say that all of it is nonsense. i think a lot of people lose patience with conspiracy theories because most of them are rather farfetched. but, not every conspiracy theory is that ridiculous, especially a few pertaining to 9/11. it's unfortunate that some of the plausible theories get lumped into the same category as the absurd ones.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • That won't work. These theories are anti-fact. They can't be eliminated by more facts or more evidence. They will always thrive in the perpetual vaccuum of those things.

    some of these theories spawn from unanswered questions. a good majority of the theories CAN be debunked, but you have to admit that you can't factually prove all the conspiracies wrong.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • funny; i don't feel the need to prove things to anyone. if you've been here a while; you'd see that evidence means nothing when it comes to opinions. the same conspiracy people are here every day with new theories and fears that the government is out to get them. leave the truth at the door when you enter here because it's not welcome. you can't reason with an unreasonable person and the conspiracy people will only call you part of the conspiracy. so nothing you ever do or prove will change their opinions. (because it's part of the conspiracy!)
    so take comfort that your life isn't filled with fear and enjoy. it's a medically proven fact that long exposure to fear causes brain damage in humans.

    i could agree with a lot of that, but there are questions that none of you can answer pertaining to 9/11. if they lied about one thing, or provided false evidence,... why wouldn't the whole damn thing be a lie? i don't see why people get so upset about it, and why it's so unbelievable,... especially considering the decisions this administration has made post 9/11.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • plinnplinn Posts: 30
    wanna see Pop Mechs, the Hearst owned, yellow journalists, whose article is not based on fact but spin and been disproven by physics experst like Steven E Jones get completely shown up by Dylan Avery and Steve Burmas?

    go to democracynow.org and watch the debate. Watch them try and lie their way out of Avery's questions. Its quite amusing. Avery and Burmas are true heros and are a credit too humanity for raising questions about what is an obvious corrupt and agenda filled administration. Whether you belive them or not, they're fearlessness and willlingness to stand up and ability to tear down these supposed "official authorities" is something every American should be proud of. Just for the simple reason that they are willing to seek truth for no profit. Whereas there are high rolling machines that keep the lies spinning and flying out of the White house, huge pr teams and corporations being told what to tell you, these guys stand for nothing but truth. We should all be grateful that there are people in the world like them. Burmas btw, served in the military in Iraq. These are not just typical "hate the establishment" kids. But people who dare to stand up against an entity that is long overdue for its time to come to an end. It is now time for real truth and peace.
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

    Loose Change:
    Loose (with truth, an effort to prevent social) Change

    a second edition of In Plane Site
    9/11 was an inside job, but Loose Change is a hoax - a real conclusion using fake evidence
  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE
    As Sad As It Was Predictable
    Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit Authentic 9/11 Research
    by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht

    I have watched “Loose Change” and in my expert opinion it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: “Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”

    Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon. This film is so slickly produced (and on such a large budget) that it is hard to believe that amateur filmmakers could have made it. Once the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense, and that was the film’s intent.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    An editor. Or in the case of this story, a reporter.


    well i guess we disagree...i think the research editor oh...say, EDITS THE RESEARCH
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    rumsfield said a missle hit the pentagon and the plane over PA was shot down? proof please! was there mass incompetence? certainly....was it a conspiracy? no


    he said both, and both are available to see on an official military website:

    "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html



    "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041223-secdef1921.html

    i don't think you can make a case for simply being incompitent...for matters like them taking away authority from NORAD and certain military to decide what to do when it comes to hijacked aircraft...it used to be as soon as a plane went off course fighter jets were scrtambled to intercept it...but on 9/11 known hijacked aircraft were allowed to fly in some cases over an hour and a half...i simply disbelieve an hour and a half AFTER the first plane hit the wtc a known hijacked plane could make a u-turn, fly thru DC's no-fly zone, make another u-turn and hit the pentagon...andrews air force base is only roughly 10 miles away from DC...there was no reason for NORAD and the military to DO NOTHING for so long...what were they waiting on? cheney to give approval....right before the pentagon was hit
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_Kabong wrote:
    well i guess we disagree...i think the research editor oh...say, EDITS THE RESEARCH

    He does! But that doesn't make him "head researcher".
  • Kenny Olav wrote:
    THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE
    As Sad As It Was Predictable
    Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit Authentic 9/11 Research
    by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht

    I have watched “Loose Change” and in my expert opinion it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: “Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”

    Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon. This film is so slickly produced (and on such a large budget) that it is hard to believe that amateur filmmakers could have made it. Once the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense, and that was the film’s intent.

    What the hell is this? Conspiracy theories on conspiracy theories? Jesus...
  • What the hell is this? Conspiracy theories on conspiracy theories? Jesus...

    I am out to debunk the conspiracy theory on conspiracy theories, but what is my hidden agenda? A conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theory on conspiracy theories...
  • I am out to debunk the conspiracy theory on conspiracy theories, but what is my hidden agenda? A conspiracy theory on a conspiracy theory on conspiracy theories...

    I'm so confused.
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    I'm so confused.

    Oswald did it..just leave it at that.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • plinnplinn Posts: 30
    I like how on one hand people say Bush is a moron and he should have done this or he can't do that. But on the other hand they say he and his cronies are behind 9/11. So is he a moron or is he an evil genius? Which one is it lunatics? I find it hard to believe a guy who can't speak in public at a decent level could be behind (or even involved) in such a brillant plan.


    Thats like saying the dumbest guy on the team can't be the quarterback. Just because he can't write out the play strategy, doesn't mean he can't learn it.
Sign In or Register to comment.