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: , ,

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

A bunch of Danish Truthers appear in this video, mostly focused on WTC-7, including one rather famous one, Niels Harrit.

It's the usual collection of hogwash--never before, free-fall speed, small fires, etc.  They do get into the Pentagon crap as well, coming down firmly on the missile theory.

But I noticed one very curious thing.  Harrit, whose name appeared first on the infamous "peer-reviewed study" that "proved" nano-thermite was in the WTC dust, and who probably gets the most face-time in the movie, never once mentions thermite at all.  Remember, he's the one with the supposed chemistry credentials, who gave "credibility" to the paper.

Monday, November 24, 2014

More 9-11 Prediction Nonsense

The Truthers really seem to love this crap, although I don't really get how it ties in with the conspiracy theories.  Do they really think comic books creators, video game producers and TV and movie people were all in on the plot years before hand and told to put subtle messages into their products?

I covered some more examples of supposed foreshadowing of 9-11 years ago.  Look, this is really simple.  Movie directors and comic creators and the like all want to put their action against spectacular backdrops.  Hitchcock used the Statue of Liberty in Saboteur, and Mount Rushmore in North by Northwest.  Comic books frequently used iconic buildings as backdrops; here's an example using the Chrysler Building in New York:

The Twin Towers were a pretty spectacular backdrop for action.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Moussaoui's Claims

Are covered here:

Zacarias Moussaoui, 46, says an unnamed Saudi Prince paid for flying lessons for him and the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes in the September 11 attacks in the run-up to the atrocities.
The incredible claims were made in documents filed to a federal court in Oklahoma, in which Moussaoui says a prince 'was assisting me in my Islamic terrorist activities... and was doing so knowingly for Osama bin Laden'.
He also said that bin Laden assistance from Saudi leaders in planning the attacks, and that he was involved in a plot to shoot down Air Force One with President Bill Clinton on board
Moussaoui also says that he was to be the 20th hijacker, which does not appear to be true.  He was arrested in Minnesota on August 16, 2001, at which point all the hijacking teams had all gotten together. According to KSM, Moussaoui was intended as a pilot in a second wave of the attacks.

The claim that a Saudi prince financed him is more interesting, as it apparently comes in depositions as some of the 9-11 families are suing Saudi Arabia.  There are some obvious red flags, though.  First, as the article notes, Moussaoui does not have terrific credibility; his story has changed many times.  Second, his funds were sent by 9-11 paymaster Ramzi Bin al-Shibh; how would he have knowledge of the ultimate source of the funds?

There may have been at some point a plot to shoot down Air Force One, but Moussaoui wasn't even in America during Bill Clinton's term.  He arrived in February 2001, after George W. Bush had been inaugurated.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Truther "Art" Accepted at WTC Museum

According to this interview, anyway:

Here's the "art" in question:

As I have mentioned in the past, the more words in a painting, the less it qualifies in my mind as art.  This one certainly sets a high mark for verbiage.  It's pretty standard stuff--5 hijackers still alive, freefall speed, thermite, new Pearl Harbor, ad nauseum.

Not pleased, but I suppose I can understand why they accepted the piece; it gets the kooks off their backs, as they can say they provide both sides of the story.  And there's no guarantee it will ever be displayed.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Terrific Interview With Brett Blanchard

For a change, there has been some US  news involving the 9-11 nutbars, so I have been a little late in linking this excellent interview.  Our bad, not theirs.  Read:

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Exactly.  We have heard a couple of kooks like Jon Cole claim they could cut one (one!) column with a thermite cutter charge.  But CD experts want to cut multiple columns simultaneously, for the exact reason we hear the idiots claim again and again--because the building must collapse into its own footprint.  If you have one column collapsing out of sequence it probably is a big deal, but if you have dozens going off randomly, who can tell what would happen? Charlie Sheen?

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

High Rise Safety Initiative Collapses at Freefall Speed

Once again, the ineptitude of the Truthers is revealed:

Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that petitioners' written application to reject in part and confirm in part the Report and Recommendation of Special Referee Lois Crespo, dated September 15, 2014 is denied and the Report and Recommendation is confirmed in its entirety, and it is further,
ORDERED that consisten with the Report and Recommendation of Special Referee Louis Crespo the Court declares that the petitioners Referendum Petition is invalid, void, and prohibited from the November 4, 2014 ballot....
No doubt they will make brave noises about learning from their mistakes on this one and attempt to get on the ballot yet again with a new petition, if people will just send them another $150,000.

Update: Ted Walter finally acknowledges defeat.

As it turned out, our financing plan was not bulletproof. While drafting the petition, we and our attorneys did not anticipate the problems that would eventually become clear – namely, that the .9% surcharge on construction permit fees could be construed as a “tax” that the City is not authorized to impose, rather than a “fee” (which the City can impose without state approval), and that having a fund to set aside moneys to be used in future years could be found to violate the balanced budget requirement of the Financial Emergency Act, which prohibits the City from rolling over unused funds from year to year.
 While holding out the hope that the next time around will be the charm:
In short, we believe the “merely advisory” issue is winnable on appeal. But, given the short timeframe for that appeal to take place (at most a few days) and the likelihood of losing on the issue of the financing plan, it is almost inevitable that the appellate division would simply affirm the lower court’s decision. This would have the consequence of cementing the court’s finding on the “merely advisory” issue, thus making it impossible to attempt another ballot initiative with a revised financing plan in the future. While we do not know at this time if we will pursue another ballot initiative, we do not want to make another attempt impossible by appealing now when we have virtually no chance of winning.