Friday, May 19, 2006

Dylan & Co Suck Up To Holocaust Denier

This may be a little too much inside baseball, but there's a very interesting mp3 of a phone conversation between Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, Korey Rowe and holocaust denier Eric Hufschmidt, who claims:

Furthermore -- and more importantly -- Dave von Kleist, Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe deny that there is any Zionist involvement in 9/11. They are Zionist Deniers. In addition, they are Holocaust Promoters.

If the criminal network is controlled by Zionists, then of course they would promote the people who deny Zionism!

If Europe can arrest people for investigating the Holocaust, we in America should arrest Zionist Deniers.

So listen to the telephone conversation I had with Dylan, Korey, and Jason, and ask yourself, are these three students being honest? Or should they be arrested for Zionism Denial? Or Holocaust Promotion?


But despite this rather strong condemnation of Dylan, Korey, and Jason, which of course should redound to their credit, if you listen to the MP3, they spend an hour on the phone with this complete fruitcake, who also denies the Apollo moon landing, and has about a million other theories. They spend a fair amount of time stroking him, trying to convince him that it's not his nuttiness that resulted in his film failing to sell while theirs is going through the roof.

My absolute favorite part is the "John Kerry is a crypto-Jew" bit, which Hufschmid gets into at about 12:30:

Huffschmidt: Well, what about other issues. You were saying also--what is it--you don't think that crypto-Jew issue is really for real, you think that was a bunch of nonsense?

(Chatter)

Bermas: Alright Eric, if you're gonna say, alright, I'm pretty familiar with John Kerry, I've heard him called a crypto-Jew.

Huffschmidt: Who?

Bermas: John Kerry. And I'm no fan of John Kerry by the way...

Huffschmid: John Terry? Wait a minute, who's John Terry?

Bermas: John Kerry the vice presidential candidate. (sic)

Huffschmid: Oh, John Kerry.

Bermas: Well, you know I've heard Daryl, I was listening to TCM? refer to him as a crypto-Jew. I can't prove that. What I can prove though, is that he's a member of Skull & Bones....


It's interesting that Huffschmid just brings up the topic of these "crypto-Jews" and immediately Bermas latches onto John Kerry (who was brought up Catholic, but apparently had a Jewish grandfather).

The essence of the conversation seems to be that Hufschmid is upset that Pacifica radio is selling their DVD and not his, and he's been told that it's because of his looney tunes ideas about the Holocaust and the Apollo moon landing and of course he can't figure out why the tinfoil hat ideas he holds on those issues should rule against the tinfoil hat ideas he holds on 9-11.

It is difficult in listening to this conversation, to avoid feeling some sympathy for the Loosers. They are on the phone with a guy who's nuttier than a Blue Diamond warehouse.

But remember--they keep sucking up to him. They need his help, or at least hope to avoid his active antagonism to their film.

So this part comes at 33:15:

Avery: Eric, you're getting upset because people aren't talking about Zionism, I mean, that's all it comes down to, and the fact is people don't want to hear that sh*t--

Bermas: And it's not that it's not legitimate, I just haven't seen enough information to say that this Zionist Cabal that everybody's talking about, is responsible. To me, it seems like it's greedy, hungry occultists that are Luciferian--I mean, I'm not saying I'm a religious person or one way or the other, but I do believe a lot of these guys believe in "Do as thou wilt." I mean, that's the bottom line.


As you can probably guess, the fact that Bermas comes off sounding sane after talking about Luciferians and stroking Hufschmid on his nutty theories about the Zionists just highlights what a complete fruitcake they're trying desperately to convince not to sabotage their efforts.

BTW, there is quite a bit of discussion in this phone call of the "Final Cut". Apparently they are going to issue a version without Karl Schwarz. They claim they're going to narrow it down to stuff they can prove, which would mean some rather wholesale changes to the film (like limiting it to the credits). Any guesses as to which nutty theory they'll adopt and which they'll finally drop?

66 Comments:

At 20 May, 2006 00:22, Blogger James B. said...

No, they can't get rid of my man Karl! Apparently his companies alone are keeping the entire economy of Arkansas afloat.

 
At 20 May, 2006 03:11, Blogger nesNYC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 May, 2006 03:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

Holocaust deniers.

Firstly, you have to put the above term in perspective. It is an emotional and smear term not unlike anti-Semite. Holocaust revisionist don’t deny the holocaust happened. The fact is that the time period of world war two nearly 20 million people met their demise. The entire war was a holocaust and no revisionist says otherwise.

The provable fact that gets everybody up in arms is the disputed number of Jewish dead. For a long time, some say as early as the 70’s the six million number has been pushed by the major media. In fact, a plaque that stood at the site of the Auschwitz memorial stated that fully 4 million Jews died at that hands of the Nazis and accounts for a major part of that 6 million. However, this was never an official number and simply fabricated by Allied invaders (liberators?) as a propaganda ploy against the Nazi regime. Remember, the victors write the history.

Wikipedia:

Though this number, and a higher total of 4 million, was used by Soviet and Polish authorities, it was never taken seriously by Western scholars, who generally supported numbers of around 1-2 million. In 1983, French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use Nazi data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Poles. A larger study started around the same time by Franciszek Piper used time tables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 1.1 million Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma. This number has met with "significant, though not complete" agreement among scholars.

IHR:


Is it "Holocaust denial" to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]

Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote (p. 366):

... Many questions remain open ... All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.


So in essence, those who argue that the 6 million number has been used for political reasons knowing well that the number of Jewish dead is substantially less then we have been lead to believe are then labeled anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. In many countries in Europe, it is illegal to publish the above facts and many historians have found themselves in jail because of it. It’s a very similar situation like Communist China and disagreeing with established government policy; you will get arrested and re-indoctrinated.

So there is no such thing as a holocaust denier in the sense of the smear term. It’s simply a catch phrase pushed by the media in order to stifle honest debate into a subject that is considered sensitive.

 
At 20 May, 2006 06:21, Blogger BG said...

Nesnyc,

These guys are running a propaganda operation here Nesnyc. Do you think they have time for any reasoned discourse!!! or logic?, or fairness?

My God, man. The purpose here is to deal in hooey dressed up as moral indignation.

Smear the truth-tellers. The American people must not understand that parts of Loose Change are right on the money.

And, remember that everybody understands that one's connections in life (having contact with "bad" people like Hufschmid) provides complete prove that you aren't to be trusted. Yep, that was proven in American history years ago. I think we have Joseph McCarthy to help us understand that.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:03, Blogger undense said...

lol @ bg,

The people who claim we never landed on the moon and that it was all a coverup by NASA and the government say the very same things you do. They play the woefull victim. They rant against the "ignorant" who just can't see or understand the TRUTH as they have. Their websites display the same sort of mental migetry that the 9/11 conspiracy sites do. They rely on the "expert" testimony of people who aren't experts and see things in photos that aren't really there (at least as they have defined them).

But at the very least you guys are entertaining and good for a chuckle. If it weren't for folks like you it'd be much more difficult to draw the line between sanity and insanity. Fortunately you folks define that line much more clearly for the rest of us.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:07, Blogger BG said...

... Ignoring Undense...
Here's an interesting new vid:
How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:07, Blogger Pat said...

Sigh. BG, you really want to align yourself with NESNYC on the Holocaust issue? He's as fruity as Hufschmid. He uses the Wikipedia entry on Auschwitz, which specifically warns that the 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz claim is commonly used by Holocaust deniers.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:36, Blogger undense said...

If they edit their film down to things they can prove it's going to end up looking like a 2-second subliminal out-take.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:42, Blogger shawn said...

"Holocaust revisionist don’t deny the holocaust happened. The fact is that the time period of world war two nearly 20 million people met their demise."

Over fifty million people died in World War II.

The Soviet Union alone lost 23 million.

"The provable fact that gets everybody up in arms is the disputed number of Jewish dead."

Well, it's not really the number of dead Jews, but total deaths in the Holocaust. The number with the most evidence is 11 million dead (6 million being Jews). Some feel that number is lowballing, but very few historians feel it is an exaggerated figure.

"In fact, a plaque that stood at the site of the Auschwitz memorial stated that fully 4 million Jews died at that hands of the Nazis and accounts for a major part of that 6 million."

No, no it doesn't. Are you really that ignorant of history (and don't even try on WWII, that's by far my favorite subject of study)? The four million plaque (placed by the Soviets) was never, ever factored into the Western estimates of Holocaust victims, and a two minute search on the internet would tell you so.

" However, this was never an official number and simply fabricated by Allied invaders (liberators?) as a propaganda ploy against the Nazi regime."

As, so now freeing people from death camps is an aggressive invasion tactic as opposed to liberation. You're a fucking idiot, and there's no two ways about it. How you survived to your current age is beyond me.

You seem to cling to every conspiracy theory, no matter how litle evidence supports it. It's hilarious in its sadness.

"It is an emotional and smear term not unlike anti-Semite."

Yes, it's emotional because antisemitism is an irrational hatred for a person just because they worship differently than someone. You are one, whether you care to admit it.

"These guys are running a propaganda operation here Nesnyc. Do you think they have time for any reasoned discourse!!! or logic?, or fairness?"

Throwing your towel in with nesnyc isn't a good move. Especially when he's been wrong every step of the way, and couldn't be more wrong now. Yes, bg using actual, verifiable evidence is propoganda.

"Here's an interesting new vid:
How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?"

They were hit by planes, burned for a few hours, and collapsed. Not a difficult question to answer. hell, I wasn't surprised at all when they fell.

 
At 20 May, 2006 08:12, Blogger undense said...

Hopefully this will finally put an end to the question of the Holocaust:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060418-104345-4902r

 
At 20 May, 2006 09:26, Blogger Alex said...

What gets me is the sheer...arrogance and horror behind these "revisionists". They cloak themselves in the mantle of "legitemate research" by saying they're not "denying the holocaust" but rather trying to prove that ONLY 2 million died. That's like claiming that Jeffrey Dahmer didn't kill 16 people, but instead ONLY had 7 victims. Frankly, even if you were right, what kind of demented individual would actually WANT to prove that?

In the case of Dahmer, it'd have to be either a close family member who still cares about him despite his crimes, or someone who really, REALLY hated his victims. In the case of holocaust deniers, it's quite clear what their agenda is. They can attempt to masquarade it as "legitemate research" all they want, but the way they present their "facts" always destroys any legitemacy behind that claim. There's only two reasons why they'd spend so much effort attempting to revise the hisoricaly accepted number of Jews (and other minorities) massacred during the holocaust. Either they're neo-nazis trying to clean up the image that they present to the world, or they're anti-semitic assholes who simply hate Jews. There's really no other alternative.

 
At 20 May, 2006 09:28, Blogger Alex said...

"As, so now freeing people from death camps is an aggressive invasion tactic as opposed to liberation. You're a fucking idiot, and there's no two ways about it. How you survived to your current age is beyond me."

He must have been a REALLY strong baby to climb out of that abortion bucket like that....

 
At 20 May, 2006 11:45, Blogger James B. said...

As Josef Stalin, another man very familiar with genocide, said, "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic".

 
At 20 May, 2006 11:47, Blogger shawn said...

Alex, it's quite obvious nesnyc is an antisemite (although he'll say I'm being a neo-Mycarthyite and trying to silence his dissent).

The war in Iraq is about Israel. The war in Afghanistan is for Israel. The war against Islamist aggression (the so-called war on terror) is for Israel. Those damn Jews run the world.

Reading the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion too much?

 
At 20 May, 2006 11:48, Blogger shawn said...

'As Josef Stalin, another man very familiar with genocide, said, "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic".'

And as Hitler said on the eve of the Holocaust, "Who, after all, remembers the Armenian genocide?"

 
At 20 May, 2006 12:04, Blogger JoanBasil said...

At Dailykos.com, any time someone posts a diary on some aspect of 9/11, there is a crew that pounces on the thread about this "Holocaust denial" issue. Its getting old. You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can even fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

The Holocaust is not relevant to 9/11 at all but the "October Surprise" might be.

 
At 20 May, 2006 12:10, Blogger shawn said...

'The Holocaust is not relevant to 9/11 at all but the "October Surprise" might be.'

It's relevant because they are two events that are historically, irrefutably documented and yet people still use "facts" to try to pretend they're something they're not.

While the Holocaust deniers ('revisionists') are far more horrific, they're in the same boat as 9/11 conspiracy believers, Apollo hoax believers, Roswelll UFO crash believers, etc. None of them have anything to do with the facts, but they all have to do with biases and the want to believe in something greater than what the general populace knows/sees.

 
At 20 May, 2006 12:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

He uses the Wikipedia entry on Auschwitz, which specifically warns that the 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz claim is commonly used by Holocaust deniers.
Yet has proven to be true and can be cross referenced by the following sources:

-Yad Vashem
-Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum

Let's do the math:

Claim - "6 million died"

of that, 4 million are supposedly attributed specifically to Auschwitz. That number, however, has been OFFICIALLY revised to 1.1 and included not only Jews but Gypsies, gays and other supposed enemies of Nazism.

Original 4 then is only 1.1 and the remaining 2 plus 1.1 = 3.1 million

It's very simple. Next time you hear the "6 million" figure, you should note it is not accurate and find out who is pushing it and WHY.

The Soviet Union alone lost 23 million.

Correct, The Bolsheviks, lead by Jews, killed nearly 7 million Christian Ukrainians. Where's the museums for that? Are these Jewish Bolsheviks being extorted billions in reparations because of this genocide? The answer is obviously no.

And what about the Jewish lead "Young Turks" that bought about the Armenian Genocide? Are they being extorted billions in reparations? Where's the museum for those folks?

Conclusion, Jewish suffering wasn't exclusive during the world wars. It is highly suspect that they are the only group singled out and promoted against all others. It is in the best interest of the Zionist state to perpetuate the lies of the wars so they can keep their extortion racket going because that's the type of monsters they are.

 
At 20 May, 2006 12:51, Blogger shawn said...

"Original 4 then is only 1.1 and the remaining 2 plus 1.1 = 3.1 million"

There were multiple death camps, and dozens of concentration camps. How you came to your figure is beyond me. I'll say it again because you can't read; THE FOUR MILLION FIGURE WAS NEVER USED IN CALCULATING THE TOTAL VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST.

And what about you getting the number of dead in the war wrong? Huh?

"Correct, The Bolsheviks, lead by Jews, killed nearly 7 million Christian Ukrainians. Where's the museums for that? Are these Jewish Bolsheviks being extorted billions in reparations because of this genocide? The answer is obviously no."

Stalin (an atheist) starved nearly ten million Ukranians to death. Trotsky, the only Jew in the Party who had any power at any time, was long gone by then. Stalin eventually had him killed. Oddly enough, the Bolsheviks being controlled by Jews was Nazi propoganda.


"And what about the Jewish lead "Young Turks" that bought about the Armenian Genocide? Are they being extorted billions in reparations? Where's the museum for those folks?"

The Young Turks were Muslims, dumbass. They removed equality for religious minorities (Christians, Jews, etc) after taking power in 1908.

 
At 20 May, 2006 12:52, Blogger nesNYC said...

None of them have anything to do with the facts, but they all have to do with biases and the want to believe in something greater than what the general populace knows/sees.

"What's commonly known" doesn't necessarily make it true. And it's quite simple to feed the populace misinformation which is then taken as fact. That is called PROPAGANDA. I mean, every knew the Iraqis pulled babies from incubators right? This fact was commonly known only to be discovered it was a propaganda ploy by a 5th Avenue public relations firm Hill and Knowlton.

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:02, Blogger nesNYC said...

The Young Turks were Muslims

Oh yeah? Why don't you do a little reading on the Sabbeteans? These Jews converted to Islam in the tradition of their Messiah, Sabbati Zevi. The modern day Kurds are decedents of these people who are Jewish in origin.

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:02, Blogger shawn said...

'"What's commonly known" doesn't necessarily make it true.'

I never said what's 'commonly known'. Most people on the street don't know who the Bolsheviks were or the Young Turks for that matter. What makes what I said true is what we call "facts". Most people think the movie JFK gets most of the facts right, when it couldn't be more wrong. A good percentage of the populace thinks the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. I never used "commonly known" as an argument as that's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

'And it's quite simple to feed the populace misinformation which is then taken as fact. That is called PROPAGANDA.'

Like the Bolsheviks being run by Jews. Nazi propoganda, it was absolutely untrue. The Bolsheviks were mostly atheists.

'I mean, every knew the Iraqis pulled babies from incubators right?'

I follow the news and politics closely and never heard that gem. As a skeptic I wouldn't just buy it if the news told me so.


Look, you don't seem to understand logical fallacies. Just because one thing is an instance of propoganda, doesn't mean all are. That's like saying if someone lied once, then everything they say is a lie. Since everyone has lied at least once in their life, under your logic (I use the term loosely), everyone lies all the time.

I can't talk logic with you though, because you think Osama and al-Qaeda are invented enemies.

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:04, Blogger shawn said...

"Oh yeah? Why don't you do a little reading on the Sabbeteans? These Jews converted to Islam in the tradition of their Messiah, Sabbati Zevi. The modern day Kurds are decedents of these people who are Jewish in origin."

WHY DO YOU CONTINUALLY THROW OUT NONPOINTS?! It's getting fucking aggravating.

The Young Turks weren't Kurds, they were TURKS. Fancy that! They were from a long line of Muslims. You are a fucking idiot. What's it like being stupid and insane?

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:05, Blogger James B. said...

Some Bolsheviks were Jews, some were Russian Orthodox, some were atheists. Stalin, back when he was known simply as Iosef Visirionovich Dzhugashvili, was studying to become a priest in Georgia. That would have been interesting.

So blaming it all on the Jews is the mark of an idiot. But hey, what do I know, I only got my degree in Russian and East European Studies. I am sure your Jewish conspiracy website knows better.

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:12, Blogger nesNYC said...

What's it like being stupid and insane?

You seem to be the only one getting his panties in a bunch so you tell me.

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

Some Bolsheviks were Jews, some were Russian Orthodox, some were atheists. Stalin, back when he was known simply as Iosef Visirionovich Dzhugashvili, was studying to become a priest in Georgia. That would have been interesting.

So blaming it all on the Jews is the mark of an idiot. But hey, what do I know, I only got my degree in Russian and East European Studies. I am sure your Jewish conspiracy website knows better.


No, it's idiotic to simply ignore the Jewish role in many of these types of coups and takeovers throughout history. For instance, all one has to do is look at who the current Neocons in the US and link Jewish lineage to most. Their current objective? Complete control over the mineral resources of Central Asia.

 
At 20 May, 2006 14:09, Blogger shawn said...

"You seem to be the only one getting his panties in a bunch so you tell me."

I'm getting my panties in a bunch because you're such a raging idiot, and I can't stand fools. You're so fucking ignorant of history it's laughable. You think whatreallyhappened is a good source of news, and think some Jewish cabal is running things.

You then link some ridiculous page that quotes one source that is mocking the "Jewish neocon" idea! Not only that, but the other quotes reek of antisemitic bias.

Hell, my greatgrandad is Irish, does that mean I'm part of an Irish cabal trying to subvert America? Because that's how your argument has been working thus far.

 
At 20 May, 2006 14:54, Blogger BG said...

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Let's review the bidding (meaning let's review what led us to be posting and commenting on this blog and this particular thread).

1. On 9/11/2001 roughly 3000 people were murdered in a very odd combination of reported planes reportedly being hijacked and three of the planes reportedly being crashed (flown expertly by hijackers, none of whom have any credentials as qualified to expertly pilot any plane) to NYC and Washington, DC. (We all know the story of the 4th plane, of course, just go to your local movie theatre). According to the govt. story, supported by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, NIST, etc., 2 building exploded into dust (in the to case of tower 1 and 2), and building 7 experienced a classic controlled demo). The pentagon was "hit" by who knows what, and clearly lies have been told to cover up many of the details as to what really happened.

blah, blah blah

2. Even with Mainstream Media: TV and major newspapers incredible cooperation with the hoax story, and planted pieces in of all places Popular Mechanics, a significant number of people don't buy the clearly false explanation.

3. A small number of people get together and create a vid called "Loose Change", which describes some of the reasons the govt. story is unlikely. It provides a modus operanti that would provide one explnation of what incredible machinations may be behind the scenes that could explain why Americans and other citizens throughout the world have been played successfully as utter fools.

4. For some reason, James and Pat are clearly confused and think Loose Change is as wrong headed as Fahrenheit 9/11. Maybe they think it is even more wrong headed.

5. Fahrenheit 9/11 was in fact on the complete wrong track to the truth.

6. Loose Change is on the right track in many regards.

7. For reasons that must be related to how gullible Americans are, and how gullible commenters on this blog are, James, Pat, et. al, think that discussion of who is and who isn't a Holocast denier, who is and who isn't a suck up to a "Holocast" denier has some conceivable bearing on whether the subject discussed in Loose Change are on the money or whether Loose Change is bunk.

8. Ergo, any sense of reason and rational discussion is offended, and I have to say I hold myself responsible wondering why I would take the time to review this with people who refuse to be rational.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:16, Blogger shawn said...

" The pentagon was "hit" by who knows what, and clearly lies have been told to cover up many of the details as to what really happened."

Who knows what? Oh, right, a plane. Fucking moron. What lies? The strawmen you assholes dream up?

"5. Fahrenheit 9/11 was in fact on the complete wrong track to the truth."

F911 gets almost everything wrong, but it still gets more right than Loose Change.

"6. Loose Change is on the right track in many regards."

When did they change the definition of the word "many" to "none"? Every single point it makes has been absolutely, inarguably debunked. EVERY ONE. (And repeating your points doesn't "debunk the debunking".)

"7. For reasons that must be related to how gullible Americans are, and how gullible commenters on this blog are, James, Pat, et. al, think that discussion of who is and who isn't a Holocast denier, who is and who isn't a suck up to a "Holocast" denier has some conceivable bearing on whether the subject discussed in Loose Change are on the money or whether Loose Change is bunk."

It's moreso the psychological problems certain people have to buy into Holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, believing in a Roswell UFO crash,belief in a Jewish cabal, belief in the Illuminati, etc. Your strawman is great though. We're not saying that Holocaust denial proves Loose Change is a load of crap (which is a logical fallacy one of you Einsteins would use). It just showcases the insane things some people would BELIEVE in exact opposition to actual facts and evidence.

"8. Ergo, any sense of reason and rational discussion is offended, and I have to say I hold myself responsible wondering why I would take the time to review this with people who refuse to be rational."

You AREN'T rational. Stop pretending. It's the most annoying thing in the world to hear people like you, or creationists, or JFK conspiracy folk, etc saying they're rational or logical, when they're NOT. I'm logical. I understand critical thinking. I understand logical fallacies. You and your ilk do not.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:16, Blogger nesNYC said...

I'm getting my panties in a bunch because you're such a raging idiot, and I can't stand fools. You're so fucking ignorant of history it's laughable. You think whatreallyhappened is a good source of news, and think some Jewish cabal is running things.

You then link some ridiculous page that quotes one source that is mocking the "Jewish neocon" idea! Not only that, but the other quotes reek of antisemitic bias.

Hell, my greatgrandad is Irish, does that mean I'm part of an Irish cabal trying to subvert America? Because that's how your argument has been working thus far.


Your simplistic replies and simplistic view on "history" is the reason why you have a hard time understanding it. Keep digging though, it will sink in eventually.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:23, Blogger shawn said...

"Your simplistic replies and simplistic view on "history" is the reason why you have a hard time understanding it. Keep digging though, it will sink in eventually."

Mine's simple? I read more books in a week than you have in your life (there's only about a dozen books that conform to your worldview, and it seems like you only read shit you agree with).

Mine's simple? Your ENTIRE worldview can be summed up as this: the Jews control everything bad in the world, and continually shape world events.

I know of someone else who thought like that.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:23, Blogger nesNYC said...

Who knows what? Oh, right, a plane. Fucking moron. What lies? The strawmen you assholes dream up?

:D Points scored.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:24, Blogger nesNYC said...

It just showcases the insane things some people would BELIEVE in exact opposition to actual facts and evidence.

The same can be said for the "official" stories that the actual facts refute.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:25, Blogger shawn said...

"The same can be said for the "official" stories that the actual facts refute."

You don't seem to get this. The ACTUAL facts support the "official" story (you know we put quotes around it because we're mocking you idiots, right?).

It's not really the "official" story, it's what actually happened on September 11, 2001.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:30, Blogger nesNYC said...

I read more books in a week than you have in your life (there's only about a dozen books that conform to your worldview, and it seems like you only read shit you agree with).

That's my point. Fictional literature has you thoroughly confused.

Now, if you're familiar with the Conspiratorial version of history, you'll find out that publish houses were long ago commandeered by the "powers that be" as is why certain aspect of it are suppressed. Put down those books and investigate other possibilities.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:33, Blogger nesNYC said...

It's not really the "official" story, it's what actually happened on September 11, 2001.

What actually happened on 9/11 does not match the official story no matter how you look at it. You may take what the official sources have to say on faith and that’s all that’s really left to believe that version. Solid substantial facts back up that the building were imploded via controlled demolition and therefore played a major part in the overall conspiracy. It is not conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:44, Blogger shawn said...

"That's my point. Fictional literature has you thoroughly confused."

Ah, so it's only fiction because it doesn't confirm your worldview. You're a simpleton.

"Now, if you're familiar with the Conspiratorial version of history, you'll find out that publish houses were long ago commandeered by the "powers that be" as is why certain aspect of it are suppressed. Put down those books and investigate other possibilities."

Hey, idiot, there are conspiracies in history. The Holocaust was a massive conspiracy. 9/11, the actual or "official" story, is a conspiracy.

"What actually happened on 9/11 does not match the official story no matter how you look at it."

It most certainly does.

"You may take what the official sources have to say on faith and that’s all that’s really left to believe that version"

Man, learn what irony is. You guys are the ones taking shit on faith.

"Solid substantial facts back up that the building were imploded via controlled demolition and therefore played a major part in the overall conspiracy."

No, they don't. There's absolutely no visual evidence. It doesn't conform to Occam's Razor, the most basic logical principle. It makes more sense that massive trauma and fire to the buildings caused them to collapse. Also, there's evidence for that, believing in the demolition takes many logical leaps. First, that you could set up all the charges in a few days time (you can't). Second, that nobody would notice charges being set up. Third, the supposed "explosions" are obviously jets of debris being pushed out from pancaking floors, conspiracy idiots like yourself take the least likely explanation and use that.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:46, Blogger shawn said...

"It is not conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact."

The conspiracy fact is the "official" story. 19 men, part of a network of 'terrorists', hijacked four flights on September 11 and either crashed or attempted to crash them into multiple high profile buildings.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:51, Blogger shawn said...

But I guess that conspiracy isn't big enough for your nutjobs.

Or doesn't have enough of the big, bad American government involvement.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:11, Blogger Alex said...

Shawn, bro, relax. These idiots aren't worth getting wound up about. I just finished reading the entire comments section from start to finnish, and the best thing I can say about it is that anyone who isn't either retarded or delusional would be so swayed by non-Sync's .... "argument" ... that they'd never even contemplate beleiving a Conspircay Theory again. The guy's such a raving lunatic that even my 12 year old sister, reading over my shoulder, was shaking her head and laughing. You may as well just ignore him from here on in.

Oh, and Pat and James, I'd like to once again irriterate that whackjobs like this tend to eradicate any semblance of rational discussion, so if you're thinking of banning him, you've got my full support :) Also, I don't know if you've thought of doing something more complex with this site, but it could be a much more useful resource if it were run as a wiki-type forum. If you're at all interested in moving away from the blog structure, let me know, maybe I can help.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:17, Blogger shawn said...

"Shawn, bro, relax. These idiots aren't worth getting wound up about."

Too true, my friends say that I'm far too hot headed. It just angers me to no end when people can ignore irrefutable facts. And then pretend they're the logical ones.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:18, Blogger shawn said...

I would have no problem banning nesnyc, he's an absolutely illogical nutcase. His entire worldview and belief structure is stained by an irrational hatred of all things Jewish and/or American.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:41, Blogger Alex said...

The thing is...when me and you were watching the towers get hit, we were thinking "fuck...we're going to war".

When he was watching the exact same event he was thinking "those fucking jews are at it again".

There's just no arguing with someone like that. We have absolutely no common ground to meet on.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:55, Blogger shawn said...

When he was watching the exact 'same event he was thinking "those fucking jews are at it again".'

I LOLed on that one.

 
At 20 May, 2006 17:26, Blogger nesNYC said...

Man, learn what irony is. You guys are the ones taking shit on faith.

Here's a great example:

1. All collapsed buildings on 9/11 fell symmetrically at free falls speeds. Simple physics calculations back this up.

That is not "faith" that is a fact.

What is faith is believing jet fuel has enough potential energy to cause the towers to fall at free falls speeds. For that, you need complicated theories and finger crossing to reproduce. Taking what the experts told us about this without analyzing their conclusion is relying of faith that they are not trying to pull a fast one. Many of you fell for it.

 
At 20 May, 2006 17:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

And then pretend they're the logical ones.

I'm not pretending. I honestly believe most of the official story is horse shit.

 
At 20 May, 2006 17:34, Blogger nesNYC said...

Third, the supposed "explosions" are obviously jets of debris being pushed out from pancaking floors

I covered this in another post but let's just say the pancake theory has been debunked, even by NIST. In their conclusion, they sited buckled support columns because the melted truss theory did work because the trusses were cross-supported. This conclusion invalidated the popular “Why the towers fell” documentary on PBS.

 
At 20 May, 2006 20:43, Blogger Chad said...

All collapsed buildings on 9/11 fell symmetrically at free falls speeds.

Except for the fact that debris was falling faster. Meaning, for the first time EVER gravity decided to effect one object more than another.

I mean damn! That debris was coming from the top of the tower. It had farther to fall and it STILL beat the rest of the tower that was in "free fall".

Fucking morons....

 
At 20 May, 2006 21:33, Blogger shawn said...

"1. All collapsed buildings on 9/11 fell symmetrically at free falls speeds. Simple physics calculations back this up."

Stop parroting this myth. How did the umbrella of debris fall faster around the tower than the tower itself fell? Some super anti-gravity government weapon system?

 
At 20 May, 2006 21:38, Blogger shawn said...

Sir Isaac is rolling in his grave.

 
At 21 May, 2006 02:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

How did the umbrella of debris fall faster around the tower than the tower itself fell?

That umbrella is a clear indication of explosives since it needed and external force to jet upwards and out.

 
At 21 May, 2006 02:45, Blogger nesNYC said...

Except for the fact that debris was falling faster. Meaning, for the first time EVER gravity decided to effect one object more than another.

The debris from the umbrella took longer to hit the ground because it was exploded upward and outward so it had to travel more distance. This behavior can only be attributed to explosives. But this does not take away from the fact that the buildings collapsed in near free falls speeds and symmetrically.

 
At 21 May, 2006 07:01, Blogger LT said...

NESNYC-
Nothing "exploded upwards". It may have moved horizontally(outward) by the rush of hot air and gas (from the fire) resulting from the pancaking floors, but it most certainly did not move upward. As many have noted here on this site, you sir, are an idiot...

 
At 21 May, 2006 10:29, Blogger shawn said...

That umbrella is a clear indication of explosives since it needed and external force to jet upwards and out.

Except when you demolish a building the charges are set on the bottom so the top can cave in, they aren't set on the top.

The debris from the umbrella took longer to hit the ground because it was exploded upward and outward so it had to travel more distance.

It DIDN'T take longer to hit the ground, that's our point. Debris from the umbrella hits the eground before the tower, even though it had farther to travel. Ergo it is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible for the tower to be falling at freefall speeds.

 
At 21 May, 2006 10:54, Blogger MarkyX said...


The American people must not understand that parts of Loose Change are right on the money.


They didn't even any real experts or people who worked on these investigations to comment. They got the wrong engine, took quotes out contexts, used a guy in the water testing department, and even suggested the confession video was faked despite that Osama wore the exact same clothes in other videos.

The blackbox is also one of the more funnier parts. They say it cannot be destroyed, yet they state a few moments later that some of the data was damaged or destroyed. Illogical bullshit FTW.

 
At 21 May, 2006 10:57, Blogger MarkyX said...


All collapsed buildings on 9/11 fell symmetrically at free falls speeds. Simple physics calculations back this up.


BZZT, WRONG.

Debris went faster than the building, therefore no freefall. Next.

 
At 21 May, 2006 13:12, Blogger Chad said...

Nesnyc. Look at this pic and tell me exactly how the debris is LOWER than the building. If the building is in "free fall" (meaning nothing is slowing it down), then how on earth is gravity pulling the debris down faster?

 
At 21 May, 2006 14:40, Blogger shawn said...

Oh shucks, Chad, you just showed him irrefutable proof that the building wasn't in free fall. Wonder how he'll respond to that.

 
At 21 May, 2006 17:22, Blogger shawn said...

Oh, look, he hasn't responded. For once he's trying to save face.

 
At 21 May, 2006 17:50, Blogger Chad said...

I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked!!

 
At 21 May, 2006 18:10, Blogger Alex said...

So now we've gone from "the government used explosives to demolish the building" to "the government used shaped charges designed to blow the debris up and out while demolishing the building".

Never mind the fact that creating such shaped charges would be extremely difficult. Let's forget also, for the moment, that it's absolutely unneccesary. Just answer ONE question non-sync:

If the debris was blown UP and out, HOW THE HELL does that explain it falling faster than the main part of the building? Let me guess; in your hurry to grasp at straws and invent new conspiracies, you inadvertantly said "up and out" when you meant "down and out"? Uhuh.

You know, that has been THE best non-sync post yet for demonstrating the sheer idiocy and stubbornness of the CT movement. When confronted with new facts, what does he do? He invents a new semi-plausible-sounding (to him anyway) thoery on the spot, without even bothering to do the slightest bit of research first. That's how the entire CT movement works. Anything that can't be explained by the CURRENT conspiracy theory simply gets a new conspiracy theory invented as quickly as possible. Then, when the newly made theory is debunked, they don't simply drop it - no, they cling to it all the harder, and modify it to sound a little more plausible. Now take that proccess, and repeat it about a thousand times. What do you end up with?

Two words:

"Loose Change"

 
At 21 May, 2006 18:28, Blogger Chad said...

Extremely well said Alex.

Now let's all watch and see how they react when having that mirror held up to them.

Ooooh! It's just like Christmas!

 
At 11 November, 2006 21:39, Blogger James Baker said...

I am here because of search results for blogs with a related topic to mine.
Please,accept my congratulations for your excellent work!
I have a wholesale dvds Bahrain site.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Best regards!

 
At 22 November, 2006 23:34, Blogger James Baker said...

This is an excellent blog. Keep it going.You are providing
a great resource on the Internet here!
If you have a moment, please take a look at my dvd site Barbados site.
Have a great week!

 
At 27 November, 2006 23:07, Blogger Paul Adams said...

A fantastic blog yours. Keep it up.
If you have a moment, please visit my dvd hits Australia site.
I send you warm regards and wish you continued success.

 
At 14 January, 2007 18:22, Blogger zygote said...

This is f#cking rediculous to scandalize essentially a couple of stupid school kids who've drank too much internet Kool-aid. Let 'em have their day in the sun, WTF. You're pathetic enough to have a whole friggin' site dedicated to a bunch of school kids, twenty-year-olds, simple ones at that. What the f#ck is the matter with you? That's what we should be looking into.

So they had a margin of success, who f#ckin' cares? You're pathetic, sad yet truly pathetic.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home