Wednesday, May 24, 2006

We Must Be Doing Something Right

Looks like we're getting under Dylan's skin.


(Click on picture to enlarge)

If you click on "assinine websites" (sic) you'll come right here to Screw Loose Change.

Dylan says: If you guys really knew what went on behind the scenes 24-7, and if you actually took the time to meet us in person before drawing conclusions about us or our work, then your assinine websites and your "Viewer Guides" would drop off the radar pretty damn quick.

Funny thing, Dylan, but in the adult world your work is supposed to stand on its own.

Note as well that the Loosers have to close their comments because they can't handle the "Truth". We've kept our comments open despite the fact that a lot of our comments are from 9-11 conspiracists linking to the craziest stuff. Go over to the forums he says?



DOH!

I also note that Dylan has yet to acknowledge Bin Laden's statement yesterday. Hiding your head in the sand?

On the Screw Loose Change Nutbar-o-Meter, Dylan rings the bell:

45 Comments:

At 24 May, 2006 10:47, Blogger undense said...

And the search for truth at Loose Change marches forward. Just be sure to forward your truth to Dylan for official sanctioning and blessing before posting it in the forums.

Thank you. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

 
At 24 May, 2006 10:57, Blogger LT said...

lol. funny how everyone stops playing when the truth is harder to deny. when people are backed into a corner that they logically (or illogically in most cases) argue their way out of, they either stop responding (BG and Jesse M), or pull the plug on the comments like Dylan and company.

 
At 24 May, 2006 11:55, Blogger MarkyX said...

Yep, I would love to comfront with their theories, but as you can see from my article, I was banned.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:04, Blogger LT said...

i JUST realized how badly shaken they are over there. They (Dylan) seem quite rattled. Poor Dylan is upset that people don't find his contrived version of events plausible. Guess he can call names, and insinuate all day, but handle to pressure of defending his ACCUSATIONS. I will give it to him though. That boy, while he may not have much character, sure has an active imagination...

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:05, Blogger BG said...

Interesting recent analysis of Pentagon events from this French dude:

Pierre-Henri Bunel is a graduate of the Ecole Militaire de Saint-Cyr (the French officers’ academy) and a former artillery officer, whose expertise is recognized in the following fields: the effects of explosives on humans and buildings, the effects of anillery weapons on personnel and buildings, firefighting for specific types of fire, wrecks and remains of destroyed airplanes. He participated notably in the Gulf War, at the side of Generals Schwartzkopf and Roquejoffre.


Interesting analysis of Pentagon explosion from France by Pierre-Henri Bunel.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:06, Blogger MarkyX said...

bg, while it's nice to hear from a french man, the witnesses and debris all point to one thing: Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

Funny thing, Dylan, but in the adult world your work is supposed to stand on its own.

His work does stand on it's own, blogs like this are proof and prove the point that most Americans are truly ignorant about the issues. I mean look at the terms used to ridicule people with dissenting viewpoints and the cartoon like (and homeland security inspired) 'Nutbar-o-meter.' When the haters come out of the woodworks to attack the messenger instead of the message, you know something is being done right.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:29, Blogger BG said...

Nesnyc

Well said....

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:33, Blogger BG said...

No stinky cheese....

but more from France...

In The Pentagate, Thierry Meyssan and his team focus on the attack that was aimed at the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:34, Blogger undense said...

Is that the very same Pierre-Henri Bunel who was caught passing NATO secrets to the Serbs and accused the US of supporting the spread of Islamization in Europe?

/googles

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN502A.html

Well waddyer know. Sure seems to be.

You're right bg. That IS interesting. But probably not in the way you implied.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:34, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:36, Blogger Alex said...

That's another fallacy. Attacking "the messenger" does not exclude "attacking the message". In fact, this blog started off as a way to debunk the many misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies in "Loose Change". It was only after a handfull of idiots decided to display their total ignorance that we started to "attack the messenger". Why? Because, no matter how many times we tell you what's wrong with your "message", you refuse to throw the fucking thing in the shredder. After a while, disputing your points becomes useless, and pointing out your many personal flaws becomes much more entertaining.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:38, Blogger BG said...

MarkyX said...
Yep, I would love to comfront with their theories, but as you can see from my article, I was banned.


I've got to respect a Community that knows how to keep the riff-raff out.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:39, Blogger Chad said...

When the haters come out of the woodworks to attack the messenger instead of the message, you know something is being done right.

Ummm, I believe this website HAS attacked the message, you douche.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:44, Blogger Chad said...

I've got to respect a Community that knows how to keep the riff-raff out.

And yet what would you say if you crazies were banned from this site?

And are you suggesting we deport you to the Middle East? I'm sure you guys have nothing to fear there.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:47, Blogger BG said...

undense said...
Is that the very same Pierre-Henri Bunel

Do you really want to get into a disucssion of the morality of NATO's involvment in the so-called war? Do you remember when George "W" spoke out against our involvment in this?

Do you really think we'll find that Bunel was not taking steps to prevent innocent lives being lost?

link here for context for text below:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN502A.html

E: Does such an opinion prevail in the French Army, which has been present in Bosnia more than a decade?

"During my trial, a French General, who was quoted in the indictment, appeared as a witness and defended me before the military court. That man, who commanded a multinational division in Sarajevo, said: 'During the year when I was a commander there, we never had any problems with the Serb authorities or the Serb Army. The Serbs respected the agreement signed. I cannot say the same thing for the other groups. The [Bosnian] Muslims were the worst.'"

E: Can we expect a change in the conduct of the Western countries in their explanation of the causes of war?

"Yes, but not before the politicians, who were accomplices in these crimes, leave. Some of the French newspapers have already made a move. Some of them, like Marianne, have published how they were manipulated by NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea during the strikes on Yugoslavia. Though, the newspapers prefer to remain silent on the fact that the information released over several years was mere propaganda."

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:50, Blogger Pat said...

I've got to respect a Community that knows how to keep the riff-raff out.

Don't tempt me.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:52, Blogger BG said...

Chad,

Now that I realise that you are immune to reason on 9/11, and overall not that much fun to chat with (deport me???), just say whatever you darn well please, but don't expect me to take you seriously.

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:54, Blogger BG said...

This guy is more fun to follow than "Big Foot"!

Bin Laden on the Move; New Sightings in Pakistan

 
At 24 May, 2006 12:55, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

I enjoy being here. I'm not trying to get tossed.

However, it's not that big of a deal one way or another.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:03, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:15, Blogger undense said...

bg,

I could not care less what kind of lame apologies you can dig up for a traitor and a man with an obvious bias and agenda against the US.

btw, do you buy his theories on Islamism and the attempt by Muslims to re-erect the Global Islamic Caliphate? Or, in your eyes, is he only right about the Pentagon and a fruit loop about everything else he claims?

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:25, Blogger Alex said...

BG just gave himself away. Obviously he doesn't mind an anti-muslim bias, as long as the person spouting it is also being critical of the US. In other words, BG's only real agenda is to demonize the US government, and any and all actions by US administrations past and present.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:25, Blogger BG said...

undense,

btw, do you buy his theories on Islamism and the attempt by Muslims to re-erect the Global Islamic Caliphate? Or, in your eyes, is he only right about the Pentagon and a fruit loop about everything else he claims?


Undense,

I take you question to heart. It is fair, interesting, related to the topic.

Perhaps I should compose an answer and create a link to it, because it requires more space than I think people would like to wade though here....

Let me give you this answer short answer for now:

If it is true, that the following things happened in a certain fashion (which I believe they did),

1) Pearl Harbor being allowed to happen

2) dropping the A-bombs on Japan

(just to name 2 off the top of my head)

If these can be justified (or were justified at the time) on moral grounds of serving the greater good of mankind, then,

perhaps staging 9/11 can also be justified by the fact that Islamic Fundamentalism and other powerful forces (China?) are poised to crush, not just our freedom, but our entire Western Civilization built up over the last 500 years.

I know that's less than a full answer.

I admit there may be Muslims who will, given the chance, treat us in ways of supreme inhumanity as we, in limited cases, are currently treating them.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:27, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:27, Blogger BG said...

Alex,

If, indeed your words about me match the facts, I resolve to do better.

This is not my intention.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:28, Blogger Pat said...

BG, relax, I'm just teasing you.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:35, Blogger undense said...

bg,

For once I can respect an answer from you because it seems to have actually come from your own hand and was not just a link to some obscure website.

I don't necessarily agree with your line of thinking, but at least I respect the response.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:36, Blogger Alex said...

I find it VERY interesting that it's easier for you to accept that there's a serious muslim threat and the US admin faked 9/11 in order to be able to defend us against it than it is for you to accept that there's a serious muslim threat and that their first assault against our way of life occured on September 11th 2001. It's like you're trying to string together the pieces of a rapidly disintegrating theory. Like a drunk trying to keep the contents of his smashed whisky bottle from slipping through his fingers.

No, I'm not calling you a drunk, I just thought it was a good simile :)

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:50, Blogger Chad said...

Immune to reason... not fun to chat with....

A single tear rolls down my cheek BG.

And just so we're clear. I'm damn proud to be immune to anything you would call "reason".

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:53, Blogger BG said...

undense,

A side comment just occured to me (related to your question about the Islamic threat).

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate, here but not really.

One of our precious national treasures is our Repubic built on representative democracy.

How precious... I don't know what to think at present.

Let's postulate that the decision makers in the Military and top echelons of our government agencies really do see clearly aspects of the future 10 years down the road. Further say they do know that unless we take definitive steps to plan for that future, there is a high probability of grave harm to our Nation.

(By the way that's what PNAC was aboute if I understand it correctly)

If this case, do we want to have a Nation vote on the topic, and trust the average American to have a clue.

Given my view of 9/11, the average American's ability to gather information, look at facts, and make logical deductions isn't worth crap.

So, getting to the point, the people behind 9/11, of which many reside in powerful positions in America and are it's sworn defenders either are:

1) magnanimous leaders who knew that there was no other way, because somehow going to the people and explaining it would never work

or

2) Serve the needs of Elites in various places who, by virtue of power and money, overrule the best interests of the common citizen.

My contention is that the only way you would want to help the cause of covering up the true facts of 9/11 is the following:

a) You believe #1 is true above

or

b) you have a way of benefiting along with the Elites.

 
At 24 May, 2006 13:55, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

got it.

I will admit my fuse with Chad is worn down.

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:20, Blogger Chad said...

BG, in all honesty, I don't harbor any ill-will towards you personally. I honestly just cannot grasp how you believe what you believe. You obviously feel the same way about me ("immune to reason").

I would apologize for the sarcasm and snide comments that I post, but that would imply I stop using sarcasm and snide comments in the future. And where's the fun in that?

I will however make a more concerted effort to civilly debate you (but only you - as you appear to be the sanest of your crew on here) in the future.

I can't promise anything though. :)

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:36, Blogger undense said...

Your reasoning doesn't make any sense, bg.

First of all, it's speculative, implying that there is definitely a cover-up, which has not been proven. That destroys any logic in it right there.

Second of all, it's accusatory by claiming that not only is there a vast conspiracy by top government and military, but just about everyone else is somehow complicit in it too, particularly those who are "elites."

Believing that way involves far too many complexities and twists.

The simple explanation is that some Islamic crazies attacked us. They have done it for decades, starting with the Iranian hostage situation.

Do you want to know why bin Laden attacked the US? He did so because of a bruised ego. When Sadam invaded Kuwait, bin Laden, recently returned from his victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan, was considered a hero in Saudi Arabia. He had status and fame. He approached the Saudi minister of defense and requested that he (OBL) be allowed to use his muj troops from Afghanistan to remove Saddam from Kuwait. It would have been a crowning glory for him and another boost to his fame.

Instead, the Saudi defense minister brought in the US military to do the job. bin Laden was enraged. Besides condemning the Saudi government, OBL decided to extract his revenge on the US. That's when he started up al Qaeda and did a little globe trotting looking for fundie converts in places like the Sudan. Eventually it led to 9/11.

The above explanation requires no "what if's" or specualtion about secret societies or conspiarcies. It's history. It's also a simple explanation which brings us to William of Ockham and his statement "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity).

 
At 24 May, 2006 14:57, Blogger BG said...

Chad,

That seems fair. I am too damn serious, and offense too easily.

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:07, Blogger BG said...

undense,

I guess having conversation is good. We continue to be so far apart on foundational information. It's not a surprise that both of might be pretty frustrated with making headwa.

If there was some artificial situation set up were somebody said:

I'm going to lock you two guys us, and neither one of you eats until you can come to agreement.

I would either:

1) throw in the towel and agree with you, cause I don't want top starve.

or

2) start at the very basics of the facts, and try to explain why I believe (and why you should believe ) the proof is already there to an enormous degree. It is so far beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind ... you just can't imagine.

This is not rocket science, nor does it take a "religious type" devotion, nor does it take an "anti-govt." stance to understand.

Yet, I would fully admit that with probably 10 hours of work that I have fazed a single person.

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:47, Blogger undense said...

bg,

You'd be wasting your time. What you accept as facts I call anecdotal evidence, speculation, and poor and/or misrepresented/misunderstood anlysis.

As such, we could never come to an agreement because you refuse to accept the debunkings and rational explanation that counter your "facts." As such, I'd have to face starvation. Knowing that I'd simply off myself, taking solace in the knowledge that an agreement would never be possible so likewise you would either eventually starve or have to off yourself as well.

I'd consider my part in that a just sacrifice. :)

 
At 24 May, 2006 16:08, Blogger Rousseau said...

As a student of politics I am cosistently amazed at how flawlessly the indoctrination process operates. Let's just acept the movie's notions are completley unfounded and rediculous as claimed on this site, an extensive and well thought out site dedicated to debunking it is also ridiculous. True or not, the sheer revulsion to the claims provides sound evidence of well trainded minds fine tuned by the American education system. If I made a movie claiming that the world was flat, would a web site be needed to debunk it? I don't know if the guys are totally right but my studies in politics makes me far more atuned to the claim that individuals can and do act with a reckless abandoned to achieve what thay felt would validate them personally, for whatever reason. It as if you all beleive that our leaders are some kind of special people not prone to the destruction, lies, and folly that permeates that records of political leaders thoughout the ages. It is important to note that Machiavelli (a great theoriticain of power) noted that essence of power is in its absence.
He advised the Prince to take advantage of humans' natural inclination to want to believe their government is good and proper. He felt that this passion could be readily manipulated and harnassed at the discretion of the ruler for his advantage. All of the speculation on both sides results in the "market failure" due to the assymetry of information. Machiavelli, hundreds of years ago was atuned to this very crucial fact, that ambivalence resulting from incomplete information will generally lead to docile aquiessence. In sum, this whole process involves psychology as much as the "material facts" invoked by bith sides. We're all lost and each side is on a scavenger hunt for thruth that remains elsive to all of us, the writer included.

 
At 24 May, 2006 17:45, Blogger shawn said...

I love how people are allowed to spew bull here, but when people post facts there they close comments.

We know who actually believes in the freedom of speech and the truth.

 
At 24 May, 2006 17:55, Blogger shawn said...

Oh and his comment about having to meet him...we have to meet everyone to judge their work? that's ludicrious. Hell, Dylan, if I met you, you'd be in the hospital about five minutes later.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

Hey, this post is pretty pathetic. Do you guys realize how many times I've been banned from the official story lover's and Israeli sites? LOL! I'm not crying about it. There's more where that came from.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:34, Blogger shawn said...

Hey, this post is pretty pathetic. Do you guys realize how many times I've been banned from the official story lover's and Israeli sites? LOL! I'm not crying about it. There's more where that came from.

nobody was banned, they just completely censored their blog.

And they did it because the 'evidence' they give doesn't add up, and they're having it shoved in their face. You just blame the Eternal Jew for everything.

 
At 24 May, 2006 20:39, Blogger James B. said...

nesync, if you get banned it won't be because your persuasive arguments are threatening us, it will be because you are annoying. Can you please come up with an argument other than, "The Jews did it"? It is morally and intellectually offensive.

 
At 24 May, 2006 23:18, Blogger nesNYC said...

nesync, if you get banned it won't be because your persuasive arguments are threatening us, it will be because you are annoying. Can you please come up with an argument other than, "The Jews did it"? It is morally and intellectually offensive.

Find the post where I blame the "Jews." I bet you can't.

 
At 25 May, 2006 03:35, Blogger shawn said...

Find the post where I blame the "Jews." I bet you can't.

"Zionists" is your code-word (and that of your buddies). Nearly all Jews are Zionists, a heft majority (at least 60 percent) of Americans are Zionists.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home