Sunday, May 21, 2006

Screw Loose Change On Roger Ebert

As someone who, in his dreams if not reality, thinks he should have been the next Steven Spielberg, I never thought I would see a reference to something I have worked on, on Roger Ebert's section in the Chicago Sun Times, in a letter written by friend of the blog,Damian Perry.

'Loose Change' and loose screws
From: Damian Penny, Corner Brook,
Newfoundland, Canada

Thank you so much for not falling for "Loose Change," one of the most absurd, illogical con jobs of all time. A warning: the 9/11 conspirozoids *will* e-mail you to complain that the guy who wrote the 'Popular Mechanics' article on 9/11 conspiracy theories is the son or nephew of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. (He isn't.) I encourage you to check out these blogs, which have done a masterful job debunking the film:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/

The comments from "Loose Change" true believers are particularly informative.

13 Comments:

At 21 May, 2006 22:46, Blogger BG said...

I wonder if Ebert would review the Loose Change differently if he has heard this 40 minute audio except from Benjamin Freedman

Web Page Here

 
At 22 May, 2006 01:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

Ebert is part of the establishment media and would never consider those 'wacky' conspiracies true. He’d loose his job if he did.

 
At 22 May, 2006 04:26, Blogger Chad said...

So that fat man's in on it too.

 
At 22 May, 2006 05:32, Blogger MarkyX said...

Don't you know the rule? Don't trust the so-called 'experts'. Instead of talking witnesses who were actually there or people qualified in their position, get random people with Theology PHD or from water testing departments to tell you about buildings.

 
At 22 May, 2006 08:22, Blogger Pat said...

Yeah, if Ebert had only heard a 1961 speech, he'd suddenly realize that Dylan and Co were right?

Sheesh, think for a moment!

 
At 22 May, 2006 08:38, Blogger Alex said...

Heh. From BG's linked site:

"Daryl Bradford Smith and his radio show
Exposing the Zionist Mafia"

"Conspiracies and Underdogs
Which conspiracies are nonsense? "

"Apollo
Science Challenge #24
Science Challenge #26"

"Conspiracy Parties
A great way to spread information and meet people who enjoy thinking. "CNN Suppressed Headline News
News you aint supposed to know about. "

Hehehe. I especially like the Apollo (moon landing) conspiracy theories. These guys are a blast.

You really need to find some better sources BG.

 
At 22 May, 2006 10:02, Blogger nesNYC said...

So that fat man's in on it too.

I didn't say that. Like you guys, media shills will look the other way in order not to rock the boat. That's what they are paid to do.

 
At 22 May, 2006 10:31, Blogger Chad said...

Like you guys, media shills will look the other way in order not to rock the boat.

As opposed to you who are brave and speaking truth to power or at least tell yourself that so you can sleep at night because it really comes down to you wanting attention and your daddy not loving you enough when you were a kid.

 
At 22 May, 2006 12:23, Blogger FatOllie said...

Some CTers claim that as few as twenty conspirators pulled off the whole 9/11 conspiracy. Snickers Bar has claimed that it was about fifty. All the others (the several hundred thousand that would actually be necessary to pull off and cover up such an operation) were just following orders. Now Snickers Bar claims that Ebert would not risk his job to expose the "truth" even if he had evidence to support it and (I would assume) believed that evidence.

This strikes me as an absolutely amazing accusation. I'm well into my twilight years and through the course of my life I've known very many people very well including some people who became high-ranking military officers and some that you see giving expert commentary on the cable news shows.

But, I have never in my entire life (and certainly not in the military and military participation would be absolutely necessary for the implementation and coverup of this operation) met a person of such low character that that person would willingly conceal evidence of the most heinous of crimes. To make such an accusation against someone you don't know and have never met with absolutely no evidence or justification is the worst of calumny.

 
At 22 May, 2006 12:46, Blogger nesNYC said...

All the others (the several hundred thousand that would actually be necessary to pull off and cover up such an operation) were just following orders.

Once you get that "hundreds of thousands" out of your head, you'll be able to think clearer. I pointed out Iran Contra the other day. There were CIA operatives that blew the whistle on that because they realized what was going on. But up until that time, they were unsuspecting participants. The hierarchical nature of military and intelligence leaves very little rooms for questioning of orders. A lot of you guys are military; you should know that first hand.

 
At 22 May, 2006 12:59, Blogger FatOllie said...

Snickers wrote:

"Once you get that "hundreds of thousands" out of your head, you'll be able to think clearer."

That pretty much sums up the CT argument from Snickers Bar's perspective. Once we understand that 9/11 was the result of a grand Jewish led conspiracy, we'll all be able to think more clearly and accept the truth of the grand Jewish conspiracy.

Interesting thing I stumbled across while following CT links like so many blown leaves on a windy autumn day only without the pretty colors and with a growing mushroom cloud in the background: the real group behind 9/11 is the Masons. After all, who would know better how to destroy a large masonry stucture than a bunch of masons? This, of course, proves the participation in the plot of our founding fathers, many of whom were Masons.

 
At 22 May, 2006 13:07, Blogger FatOllie said...

bg wrote:

"I wonder if Ebert would review the Loose Change differently if he has heard this [40 minute rant by some anti-semitic crackpot recorded 40 years before the events it supposedly proves]."

We were discussing propaganda the other day. The speech you link too is a perfect example. I couldn't listen to very much of it, I turned it off when he told how the Zionists pledged to bring the U.S. into WWI if the British promised to give Palestine to the Zionists in exchange. I doubt that Ebert (or any other sane person) could stomach much more of that crap than I could.

 
At 22 May, 2006 17:06, Blogger Alex said...

"The hierarchical nature of military and intelligence leaves very little rooms for questioning of orders. A lot of you guys are military; you should know that first hand."

Actually, us being in the military would know that your statement is a load of crap, whereas you, without a single day spent in uniform, presume to tell us what the military is like. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that it's the sheer undeserved ego-trips of CTers that pisses me off. Who the fuck do you think you are? You have absolutely NO experience in the field you're discussing, yet you claim to know more than those who work in it on a daily basis. You're a goddamn self-centered basket case. It's a good thing you love yourself so much because I seriously doubt anyone else ever could.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home