"Loose Change" & Other Conspiracies Get OWNED!

245

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    pushmepullme wrote:
    The same way Bush researched Iraq's WMD's hey? Lol. You suckers sure fell for that old bag of shit didn't you?

    *sigh*

    What makes you think that these situations are even comparable? I didn't support the Iraq War. I didn't even support the Afghanistan war. I don't support this president at all, nor do I believe what he says.

    Calling someone a name without even having the facts to back up the accussation really speaks volumes, considering the topic at hand.
  • AllNiteThing
    AllNiteThing Posts: 1,115
    Popular Mechanics spin gets 'owned':
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    no, in reality one of the guys who wrote the story is related to homeland security director michael chertoff.
    24 years old, mid-life crisis
    nowadays hits you when you're young
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    no, in reality one of the guys who wrote the story is related to homeland security director michael chertoff.


    wasn't he the head researcher on their other 9/11 story? and when he was asked if they were related <he and chertoff> he said he didn't know?? normally when your cousin is head of homeland security word wold spread around the family
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    El_Kabong wrote:
    wasn't he the head researcher on their other 9/11 story? and when he was asked if they were related <he and chertoff> he said he didn't know?? normally when your cousin is head of homeland security word wold spread around the family

    :rolleyes:

    The person who wrote this article is not related to Chertoff. Chertoff is related to Popular Mechanics' online editor. That person was not a "head researcher" on anything.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    :rolleyes:

    The person who wrote this article is not related to Chertoff. Chertoff is related to Popular Mechanics' online editor. That person was not a "head researcher" on anything.


    he was to their original 9/11 article

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y
    REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff....


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chertoff
    Benjamin Chertoff is a research editor for Popular Mechanics, most known for his work with the 9/11: Debunking The Myths article. He is currently the Popular Mechanics Online editor, and he hosts and produces the Popular Mechanics Show, the weekly podcast of Popular Mechanics magazine.

    He returned to magazines, working again at Men's Journal as a research editor before moving to Popular Mechanics in September, 2004. There, he worked as the magazine's research editor, and helped to manage the reporting for magazine's March, 2006 9/11: Debunking The Myths story, as well as the magazine's coverage of the aftermath to Hurrican Katrina, and countless other aviation, military and technology stories. He is currently the Online Editor of Popular Mechanics, and edits all the non-print outlets of Popular Mechanics Magazine. [1]
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    El_Kabong wrote:
    he was to their original 9/11 article

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y
    REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff....

    Hehe...didn't realize "REPORTING" and "HEAD RESEARCHER" are synonymous. You might want to keep reading that article. If you do, you'll find this:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

    Those are your researchers.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...didn't realize "REPORTING" and "HEAD RESEARCHER" are synonymous. You might want to keep reading that article. If you do, you'll find this:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y

    Those are your researchers.


    what do you call the research editor?
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    El_Kabong wrote:
    what do you call the research editor?

    An editor. Or in the case of this story, a reporter.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    This might help you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editing
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    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....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Drowned Out wrote:
    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Drowned Out wrote:
    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.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    onelongsong wrote:
    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?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Drowned Out wrote:
    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Drowned Out wrote:
    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.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    Drowned Out wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Drowned Out wrote:
    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.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    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.

Categories