Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch the annotated version, which was named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. The creator did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I also recommend the BBC's terrific video on The Third Tower.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: Because some of our commenters have chosen to act like children, we are no longer allowing comments.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Rosie Still An Idiot

No particular surprise. She's apparently going to be back on the View as resident Truther.

Dean Wormer put it well:

Friday, August 08, 2014

High Rise Initiative Shot Down at Freefall Speed

Yet another massive fail for the Truthers; their 57th consecutive bungle.

On Monday, we received the City Clerk’s certificate, which claims first that the petition has only 27,892 valid signatures, 2,108 less than the 30,000 threshold; and second that the proposed charter amendment is legally invalid for three reasons.

Legally invalid? How could that possibly be, with an experienced election lawyer working for them?

1. The Financing Plan. The City claims that the proposed .9% surcharge on construction permits is a tax and not a fee, and thus invalid because it would require approval from Albany. We will argue that the surcharge is indeed a fee, which the City has the authority to enact without State approval. The proposed surcharge is similar to many fees the City already charges. According to our lawyer, Leo Glickman, "By labeling this surcharge a tax, the City is calling into question the legality of hundreds of fees it already charges, and making it much more difficult to enact fees in the future. It's astounding that the City is willing to act so strongly against its own self-interest to keep the voters from weighing in on this matter."

2. Adequate notice as to the effect of the charter amendment. The City claims the petition does not give adequate notice to voters about the effect of the charter amendment. We will argue that it obviously does, and additionally we may argue that our canvassers very clearly communicated the effect of the charter amendment, as does our website and other campaign materials.

3. Whether the charter amendment is advisory, or mandates a fundamental governmental function. The City claims that because the charter amendment applies in part to a building collapse that occurred on September 11, 2001, which according to the City, falls under federal jurisdiction, it is advisory in nature - in other words, it expresses an opinion rather than mandating a fundamental governmental function. Under Municipal Home Rule Law, the law that provides for this type of ballot initiative, advisory ballot initiatives are not allowed. We will argue that the charter amendment indeed mandates a fundamental governmental function related to a matter falling squarely under local jurisdiction, and it is not intended to express an opinion.

Perhaps the most entertaining part of #3 is that the decision in the NYC-CAN's 2009 lawsuit against the city is cited as precedent.

No surprise, the Truthers are going to court to appeal the decision, and (of course) looking for donations to fund their legal fees. As I've said in the past, I almost hope they succeed in getting the measure on the ballot and passed, because their frustration when the Buildings Department responds by saying "See the NIST report," will provide even more amusement.

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Kurt Eichenwald on the Danger of Conspiracy Theories



Agenda 21 is goofy, certainly, but I doubt it is the most damaging conspiracy theory out there. I mean, horrors because bike paths can't get built because of Agenda 21. Hey, I love bike paths myself and I am not a believer in the awful things that are coming as a result of Agenda 21. I probably put a couple thousand miles a year on my bike. I am more in agreement with the point about the anti-Vaxxers.

I do like that he gets the backwards nature of conspiracy theories although he does not explain it particularly well. The point is that CTists start with the conclusion (the government did it) and sift backwards, looking for evidence that will prop up that belief. I also like his point about the minute questions that the 9-11 Truthers ask. Here's one of my favorites from the supposed 91% unanswered widows' questions that Brian likes to natter on about:

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States

1. Please discuss the advice and plans of the Energy Advisory Council specifically as they relate to pipeline development and gas/oil exploration in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and the feasibility of such development or exploration specifically in those two countries in 2001.

Nothing to do with 9-11 except in some idiot's mind.

BTW, Lorie Van Auken claimed in 2007 that only 70% of their questions were unanswered; she must be a government shill:

“It was a pathetic excuse of a report,” says Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth was killed in WTC I. “Seventy percent of our questions went unanswered.



Thursday, July 31, 2014

Bill Clinton on 9-10-01: I Could Have Killed Bin Laden

Talk about bad timing.  Bill Clinton gave a speech in Australia the day before 9-11 in which he mentions that he passed up a chance to kill Bin Laden because it would have meant killing 300 innocent women and children.

You know how it is; in hindsight it looks like a terrible decision.  But it's probably defensible on the basis of what Clinton knew at the time.  I do find it interesting that he mentions 300 innocent women and children.  What, no innocent men in the area?  Or do they just not factor into the equation?  I also wonder what the acceptable number would have been.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

De Blasio: Truther Initiative Ridiculous, Insensitive and Inappropriate

Couldn't have put it better myself:

"I believe the City Council will share our view that this should never be on the ballot," he said, with Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito nodding in agreement beside him.
 At this point, I'm kind of hoping that they get it on the ballot, so the voters can smack it down.  Or even that it passes and the Buildings Department just laughs and tells them to look at the NIST report.  No matter what happens the Truthers are going to lose out in the end, because they don't have a real case, just a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theories.

Saturday, July 05, 2014

NYC-CAN Submits 67000 Signatures

It's interesting that with paid signature gatherers and a much less-controversial measure this time around, they got 13,000 fewer John Hancocks than in 2009.  Of course, they're headed for another pie-in-the-face ending, but for now they're probably convincing themselves that the NY Buildings Department will somehow find that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition. 

Truckload of fail to follow.