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.
posted by Pat @ 5:43 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
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.
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.
Cable spools:
Picture 1
Picture 2
If we are to believe the "offical" version then why weren't these spools all knocked down?
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."
Source to the above.
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.
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.
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!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"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.
Post a Comment
<< Home