Saturday, May 13, 2006

And Now for A Little Audience Participation

We'd like to request some help from our readers. Look through posts here and elsewhere for the most obvious examples of:

1. Lies in Loose Change. We're looking here for whoppers that it doesn't take two hands to handle; something that is quite obvious. For example, the claim that the cable spools were untouched, when we can see that they've quite obviously been knocked around a great deal. The best ones of these are the ones where the lie is even contradicted in the movie.

2. Mistakes in Loose Change. B-52, B-25, what's the diff? Again, obvious ones, not stuff that it's going to take a master's degree in engineering to understand. Like showing a shoulder-fired missile/rocket and implying it's a cruise missile.

3. Distortions in Loose Change. Whoo-boy there's a lot to pick through here. The most obvious ones to me are the four carefully selected quotes from Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller, which are chosen to give the impression there were no human remains at the United 93 crash site. Never mind that Miller and his ME team have identified remains of 12 of the people on that flight at the scene.

4. Here's one for the CT crowd: How about giving us a couple examples where something in the movie is validated by mainstream media accounts? There are a lot of bit players in Loose Change; do any of them back up the movie? I was looking around a little earlier for example on the power down story and the guy cited there apparently does believe in the CT. Let's hear about more backup for the movie.

This is part of the nature of an investigative blog like Screw Loose Change. James and I can do a lot of research. But the best work is done when the readers chip in and lend a hand.

Update: Lotta paranoia in the comments already over what we're trying to accomplish with this task. Mainly we're trying to organize the data we've already accumulated, and also point to dead-ends in the investigation. Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust apparently has confirmed the account of his suspicions about the power down, so there's no sense investigating that.

20 Comments:

At 13 May, 2006 17:57, Blogger Be said...

If Loose Change is a lie than why doesn't the governement come out and give answers to the questions that have been posed, why are they reluctant if they have nothing to hide. All this documentary is stating is that these questions have to be answered, it is not an attack on the governement, unless it is proven right.

 
At 13 May, 2006 18:53, Blogger BG said...

There's no way that I have the time right now to document the huge number of substantiated cliams in Loose Change.

My take is that you are setting up the same "sales technique" that is used by life insurance salespeople or other sales situations where you, the salesman, are "helping" the client do "his own analysis" to help convince himself that he should buy life insurance, or an annuity or whatever.

Here's how it works: You create a ledger on paper and have him list the reasons to not buy on the left, and the reasons to buy on the right.

Since you are the salesman, no matter how many reasons the client lists (usually he only thinks of a few to put down off the top of his head) you, being the professional that you are, have a huge number of reasons to buy. You then proceed to rattle off reasons to buy that drawf the reasons not to buy, and use that as leverage to work against the buyer's resistence.

What is clearly is called for is what you call the CT side, is an ammassing of our evidence. Seems to me you'll be using a home field advantage to rig this in your favor, which is all you care about rather than finding the truth.

 
At 13 May, 2006 20:26, Blogger screenwriter said...

"Loose Change" is taking the 9/11 truth movement into the main stream of culture.
The average guy on the street will see "Loose Change" and will begin to connect the dots.
This site is just another pitiful attempt to stop the truth from marching on.
The gov't story on 9/11 is so incredibly flawed. Insiders are fighting a hopeless battle with their propanganda stunts.
Millions of dollars can buy lies such as the Universal Film on Flight 93, but a few college kids from NY put up a few thousand dollars to make "Loose Change" and it puts the lights out on any film involved in the coverup.
Treason and treachery will be defeated. Give it up, guys. "Screw Loose Change" is a waste of time.

 
At 13 May, 2006 20:47, Blogger nesNYC said...

All the FBI has to do is release the videos from the Hotel and Gas station that filmed the events at the Pentagon. The speculation would be over and the CT people put in their place. It's that easy.

 
At 13 May, 2006 21:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

Cable spools:

Picture 1

Picture 2

If we are to believe the "offical" version then why weren't these spools all knocked down?

 
At 13 May, 2006 21:19, Blogger nesNYC said...

The most obvious ones to me are the four carefully selected quotes from Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller, which are chosen to give the impression there were no human remains at the United 93 crash site. Never mind that Miller and his ME team have identified remains of 12 of the people on that flight at the scene.

You're right this is a real whopper! Where did you get that they identified bodies at the scene? They needed DNA to identify the remains and then it took nearly to October to find all the body parts:

Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks
were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.


LOL!

Here's more:

Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11.
He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says,
"like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says,
"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there

Immediately after the crash, the seeming absence of human remains led the mind of coroner Wally Miller to a surreal fantasy:
that Flight 93 had somehow stopped in mid-flight and discharged all of its passengers before crashing.
"There was just nothing visible," he says. "It was the strangest feeling."**It would be nearly an hour before Miller came upon his first **trace** of a body part.**

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Saturday, October 27, 2001
At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions,
wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.
"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in
10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

 
At 13 May, 2006 21:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

Source to the above.

 
At 14 May, 2006 07:17, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Loose Change is vastly more diligent, scrupulous, honest and truthful than Bush, Cheney and the major media were about the Iraq war.

 
At 14 May, 2006 09:00, Blogger LT said...

Nesync
If you would bother to read this blog, you would see that most of the crap you have listed in this thread has already been refuted...cable spools etc...

 
At 14 May, 2006 10:10, Blogger roger_sq said...

"Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust apparently has confirmed the account of his suspicions about the power down, so there's no sense investigating that."

Spoken like a Kean Commission investigator! Thanks for the chuckle. And the admission that you would rather ignore the legitimate questions and hit softballs over the plate to reinforce your own unsubstantiated beliefs.



"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since
I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that
all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough back up
afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling
in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no
security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers'
coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

I have mailed this information to many people and bodies, including the 9/11
Commission but no-one seems to be taking and registering these facts.
Whats
to hide? Can you help publicise them?

Scott Forbes

 
At 14 May, 2006 11:05, Blogger roger_sq said...

The problem with your approach here is there is not very much evidence because the government has either confiscated it and or destroyed it prior to independent investigation. FAA transcripts destroyed immediately. WTC remains shipped off to China (forget that the US has ample capacity to recycle steel, and in fact has protectionist tariffs to protect US Steel workers, because that's speculation)

Freedom of Information Act requests for Pentagon footage of the impact were denied by the FBI, specifically citing the vital role that film would play evidence for the ongoing trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. They did however cite 85 sources of video obtained by the FBI and DoD which would fall under the FIA request. Why is the Pentagon strike under wraps, when the whole world has seen the first two strikes? Senthitivity...? Are we to believe that the jury in the Moussaoui trial is not aware and influenced by the events of 9/11, but footage from the Pentagon would unduly influence them?

That film was not presented at the trial. The trial is now over and the footage is still not released. Why.

The SEC investigation pertaining to the insider trading has NOT been explained, please do not cite the grossly insufficient footnotes to that effect. Nor the 9/11myths fluff which also fails to explain them.

It doesn't take 6 months to discern who bought put options, nor does it require extensive cooperation with foreign governments. It takes an SEC 'blue sheet' request to the clearing firm, and that takes a day or two at most.

A brief lesson in how this works. Option trading involves what is called "counterparty risk". When those options were purchased by 'whomever', they were also sold by a counterparty who assumed the risk. The profits do not magically appear out of thin air- they are marked as a loss in the account of whoever sold them, dollar for dollar.

Because of this (and voluminous SEC and IRS regulations), anonymous purchasing and selling of options is impossible. Assume for a moment you were the seller of those put options. You lost millions of dollars that day. Assume for a moment you could simply 'abandon' that loss.

Wouldn't that be nice. But it is the obligation of clearing firms on both sides of the trade to maintain exact and precise records of who owes and who is owed, and ensure both parties are held accountable accordingly.

So- where is the corroborating evidence cited in the footnotes after this alleged 'exhaustive' investigation, which could and should have been competently and comprehensively compiled by a low level SEC enforcement clerk within 3 days of the attack, simply by pulling blue sheets on the suspicious trades? They do it all the time. And who the hell is Ed G.?

Assuming no prior knowledge, why was there a massive multinational troop buildup for in the Indian ocean prior to the attacks, the military mobilizing for a regional conflict by deploying troops from the Persian Gulf to the Afghan theater months in advance, yet absolutely nothing done to stop the attacks in the US by a fully positioned rapid response force which maintains constant readiness to respond to its operational mandate to scramble jets for just such an event?

Selective omniscience?

Why did a General Meyers cite that the 9/11 commission found that wargames orchestrated on that day actually 'enhanced' the response capability of the military rather than inhibit it? How could their response have been any worse? Officially, they had to rely on passenegers of 93 to stop that attack, and the other 3 went off without a hitch. The Pentagon would rather have it both ways- it was the darned FAA that dropped the ball, always getting in the way of military response... but no, if we hadn't been playing those war games on 9/11 where our jets were redeployed to the North Pole, our response would have been a lot more ineffective than the total and complete failure that it was.

Please explain? Source-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RvLL--vSsA&search=mckinney

(7:30)

Questions, no evidence to make any suppositions. Why? Because evidence has been excluded from ALL versions of 9/11, including the official version.

 
At 14 May, 2006 11:27, Blogger Paul said...

No matter how nicely you ask, I see no need to watch the movie. I've investaged enough of the claims on the 'net and such and find the government "not guilty" on this one.

And if I'm wrong, we're so fucked up it doesn't really matter, does it?

 
At 14 May, 2006 11:33, Blogger Pat said...

Roger Sq we are not investigating 9-11 here, we are investigating claims made in Loose Change. A claim was made that the guy at Fiduciary Trust was suspicious of the power downs; I did a little checking and the story seems true. Yes, it's something that deserves attention where people are investigating 9-11, but as far as investigating Loose Change, the Forbes' story checks out. Chalk one up for the Loosers; I knew they'd get one some day.

 
At 14 May, 2006 12:25, Blogger James B. said...

Forbes story is exaggerated though. All he said was that they were working on the power for one building. They did not block off the building, and he himself admits he was there for part of the time they were working. Furthermore this was only in one building, not all 3. No one else has come forward with any other incidences of this happening in the other 2 towers.

And lastly, this story contradicts the actual story in Loose Change. When asked whether there were unusual evacuations in the weeks up to 9/11, which is the claim made in the movie, he said no.

But hey, nobody ever said conspiracy theories had to be consistent.

 
At 14 May, 2006 12:55, Blogger roger_sq said...

Roger Sq we are not investigating 9-11 here, we are investigating claims made in Loose Change. A claim was made that the guy at Fiduciary Trust was suspicious of the power downs; I did a little checking and the story seems true. Yes, it's something that deserves attention where people are investigating 9-11, but as far as investigating Loose Change, the Forbes' story checks out.

I see. That explains a lot.

Very well then. The systematic pattern of ommissions, distortions, illogical conclusions, baseless claims and reliance on the most spurious of sources found throught Loose Change is exactly the same systematic pattern adopted by the Kean Commission, which you accept as factual and refernece repeatedly to 'debunk' Loose Change. Thus standing upon a faulty premise to refute another faulty premise, with the truth somehow discarded as irrelevent to the disucussion.

Besides being an abysmal display of rhetoric over logic, what a collossal waste of time. What you are essentially saying, is that you have set out to bait tinfoil hat liberals for the sake of occupying bandwidth and drawing attention to your blog, because the fan base for your comic book blog wasn't satisfying your mom's hopes that you'd someday move out of her basement.

If you have no interest in the actual events of 9/11, there is no point in refuting LC because it leaves you with an official story which is equally flawed, but which you are comfortable with due to your own predilections and beliefs about the way the world works.

pitiful. And rather damning to your case of intellectual superiority over the moonbats. Looks like you're all equal in the end- and your statement above reveals you for the brainswashed sycophant that you are, incapable of independent thought.

later...

 
At 14 May, 2006 13:34, Blogger Realist06 said...

Good post Roger.
Except, I will take exception to your "tin foil hat wearing liberal" comment.
I may be a tin foiler but I'm definitely not a liberal!

 
At 15 May, 2006 02:51, Blogger Charly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 May, 2006 21:58, Blogger shawn said...

"There's no way that I have the time right now to document the huge number of substantiated cliams in Loose Change."

You don't have zero seconds?

But I always love how you never actually support anything you say, you just throw it out. You folks ("the government did it" crowd) don't seem to get that YOU have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your interpretation (a word too generous for you) of the events is factually correct.

I'll put it this way: if you guys were defense lawyers, your client would've got the chair long ago.

"Except, I will take exception to your "tin foil hat wearing liberal" comment."

Actually, most of the tin-foil hat crowd are far-rightists.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:13, Blogger sumy23 said...

This blog is for defending corruption.

If you post any real info on this blog they will just delete your post. They really only encourage weak info. Anything that they can't debunk gets deleted. Dont waste your time here.

 
At 20 August, 2006 21:08, Blogger jh said...

I am most intrigued by the thoery that flight 93 never went down. If this is true, what do they suggest happened to the people who were supposed to be on the plane. The "Let's roll" guy, ect. I assume by the interviews of the widows and other family members, that they did exist. Is the theory that the govt killed them?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home