Friday, June 30, 2006

Dylan Ducks Mark Roberts

Over at the Screw Loose Change Myspace page (which has an amazingly active discussion section):



Update: My mistake, that's at Dylan's Myspace page.

37 Comments:

At 30 June, 2006 09:36, Blogger CHF said...

Meanwhile Dylan Avery and a moron and cuz a fool.

 
At 30 June, 2006 09:42, Blogger MarkyX said...

www.myspace.com/avery_dylan

Funny shit.

 
At 30 June, 2006 11:24, Blogger BG said...

Markyx, chf, Pat, and James,

All of you guys are dishonoring yourselves to celebrate this level of discourse.

Markyx,

You debunk video: not very impressive.

 
At 30 June, 2006 11:27, Blogger apathoid said...

I mean, like hey man, I'm, like hey, you know, just asking questions.....and like, I mean, hey, Mark Roberts is CIA.

 
At 30 June, 2006 11:42, Blogger Jujigatami said...

I have to agree with BG here... It's not nice to celebrate the sheer and utter stupidity of the CTers.

I mean, it's not their fault they are so unbelievably gullable and moronic. Sure, they probably did make the choice to burn all but a few of their brain cells on cocktails of pot, hash, and extasy- but it's still like making fun of retarded kids... sure the jokes may be funny, but they are still in poor taste.

Really, it's just not their fault they believe the dumbest shit possible. Its probably genetic.

So don't dishonor yourselves anymore by making fun of the retarded, er, I mean the CTers.

 
At 30 June, 2006 12:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

Mark Roberts has been debunked; everybody should ignore him and let him be. No need to waste effort on a wasted debunkers.

And in other news, Osama has been spotted out runing the US/Mil, go here :D

http://www.solisnetwork.com/~jsolis/attach/F16%20chasing%20osama.jpg

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

All of you guys are dishonoring yourselves to celebrate this level of discourse.

It's called a circle jerk. They can't help themselves :D

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:08, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Mark Roberts has been debunked

Now that's news. Link please?

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:19, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Nesnyc sayong "No need to waste effort on a wasted debunkers. "

Now thats funny. Best laugh I've had all day.

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:28, Blogger apathoid said...

Mark Roberts has been debunked

When? Where? Link?

everybody should ignore him and let him be.

Yeah, just keep ignoring him and I'm sure he'll go away............not.

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:31, Blogger CHF said...

LOL!

Yeah let's "ignore" the "debunked" Mark Roberts and instead listen to Judy Wood and Stephen Jones. Their case is rock solid. Yes sireeee.

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

Yeah, just keep ignoring him and I'm sure he'll go away............not.

He does go away, all he ever wants is for people to go on JERF and get in a pissing contest with him. Pretty productive don't ya think?

But he does stop. I had an interesting email exchange with him that he didn’t' want to address but only on JERF. Valid points I made are here on Osama being alive:

----- email to mark -----
I sourced it well, I believe. Follow my links; they take you to "official sources" you seem to trust. Take off your patriotic blinders for a minute and let the trillions being made by the defense industry settle in you mind for a moment. You don't need much motive than the obvious. If the funding for the resulting wars is as widely reported that is, then why wouldn't these people pay an army of misinformation agents to generate this "mountains of evidence?" In the most obvious "official" fabrications lies Judith Miller of the New York Times. In this instance, they were caught! Is that some "warmed-over belief?"

Read:
http://www.slate.com/id/2086110/

There are some many more instances of these people fabricating "news" for mainstream US consumption, they have admitted it! You don't need other proof than that.

Why would Dale Watson of the FBI go on the record stating he concluded Bin Laden was dead?

If you didn't already, read here for that story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/17/attack/main515468.shtml

Also, Bin Laden was known to be ill long before 9/11. Go here for that:
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2001/11/09/marfan/index.html

But you don't need the above to prove it to yourself that Bin Laden is dead. Fully two wars have been waged in two different countries and more wars are coming, why hasn't Bin Laden been captured?

But I’m going to go on the record here and say that he will NEVER be caught because it's pretty conclusive, he's already DEAD! All those experts you're sourcing are pulling yours and the American public's collective leg for the good of the Empire they are trying to establish. That's not a "theory" that's a fact.
----- end email ----


While he sites Wikipedia that regurgitates government propaganda as his sources, he really does nothing to solidify his argument. Meaning, prove that Osama wasn't ill around the time of his death. Prove that the "confession" videos and current audio tapes are really Osama citing non-governmental sources.

The fact that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11 is a direct hit to the 911myth site and to Mr. Gravy. He has been thoroughly debunked in that instance and has no alternate explanation of who was involved if in fact Osama wasn't. The whole "debunk" argument falls flat on it's face at that point and leaves him speechless, unless on JERF of course.

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:53, Blogger CHF said...

yeah nesnyc, bin Laden has nothing to do with 9/11.

Maybe you should inform all those Islamic jihadists who seem to think he does.

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:04, Blogger apathoid said...

The fact that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11 is a direct hit to the 911myth site and to Mr. Gravy.

Nessie, you have a penchant for stating "facts" that are not facts.

Why do you do this?

Strike 1

While he sites Wikipedia that regurgitates government propaganda as his sources

Government propaganda like the NIST report and mainstream sources??

Strike 2

He has been thoroughly debunked in that instance and has no alternate explanation of who was involved if in fact Osama wasn't.

So, because of your opinion that Osama wasnt responsible, means that Gravys entire factual debunking of Loose Change is suddenly incorrect?

Wow. Strike 3

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:09, Blogger James B. said...

All of you guys are dishonoring yourselves to celebrate this level of discourse.


There is no discourse, we refute their lies, they either refuse to respond because "we are not worthy", ban us from their forums, or change the subject. WTC7 WTC7 WTC7!!! Watch this video!!

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:09, Blogger apathoid said...

Maybe you should inform all those Islamic jihadists who seem to think he does.

They're all government psy-ops agents and Zionists. There is no such thing as suicide bombings, its all NWO Zionist propaganda.

Its a fact, Nessie said so.

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:09, Blogger Richard said...

How is SLC "debunked" if it totally blew away Loose change? All you ever say is its debunked or that his sources are crap yet you use the "mass media" when it suits your needs? What about all of the quotes takes directly out of context? Can you even admit that? You never admit to any of the errors of loose change. If you reply, but don't mention the quotes taken out of context then your a coward.

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:12, Blogger Richard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:16, Blogger CHF said...

Richard,

you have to understand how the English language works in CT land.

"Debunking" is when a CTers says "that evidence was planted by the government."

When you actually pick apart an argument and show it's based on lies, distortions and a lack of education - that's called a "hit piece."

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:25, Blogger apathoid said...

"Debunking" is when a CTers says "that evidence was planted by the government."

And of course, having no evidence to back that assertion up - they claim always claim that witnesses were bought off.

Yep, any holes in their little theories can be patched up with planted evidence(like 1,200 lb. landing gear struts) and bribed witnesses/shills....

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:08, Blogger Pat said...

All of you guys are dishonoring yourselves to celebrate this level of discourse.

BG, one of the experts on the non-CT side has offered to debate with one of the experts on the CT side. What's wrong with that level of discourse?

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:16, Blogger Richard said...

Richard,

you have to understand how the English language works in CT land.

"Debunking" is when a CTers says "that evidence was planted by the government."

When you actually pick apart an argument and show it's based on lies, distortions and a lack of education - that's called a "hit piece."


Ok, it all makes since now! I need to pick up an English to CT dictionary at the book store now. That is if the CIA hasn't infiltrated Waldenbooks already...

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

How is SLC "debunked" if it totally blew away Loose change?

Not really, it only regurgitated government propaganda, that's not "debunking" at all.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:42, Blogger shawn said...

Not really, it only regurgitated government propaganda, that's not "debunking" at all.

Remember folks: any evidence for the "official" story is automatically propaganda (even if it's based on such objective things as logic and science).

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:45, Blogger nesNYC said...

And of course, having no evidence to back that assertion up - they claim always claim that witnesses were bought off.

Here's solid evidence government fakes "news" to get it's way:

http://www.slate.com/id/2086110/

No "debunker" has ever put a dent in that argument. The proof is there but none of you refute with anything other than older government propaganda that the above proves to be false. The whole "Gravy," 911myth and SLC "debunking" does just that, nothing but slinging accusations of incompetence and not really addressing the facts.

The above link shows how much of a liar government hacks are when they want their war. It is proven that the Osama story is in the same boat. Because of that, the Government's, Gravy, SLC and other people pushing the official fantasy have a REAL problem. There is nothing that can salvage the official story once Osama is out of the picture, that goes triple for the debunkers.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:45, Blogger nesNYC said...

even if it's based on such objective things as logic and science

Not in the 9/11 case.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:49, Blogger shawn said...

And nesnyc still doesn't understand that his non sequiturs have no bearing on SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

Not in the 9/11 case.

You're absolutely correct, you guys use absolutely zero logic and science. You ignore them both.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:43, Blogger Alex said...

Can we make a pact guys?

Every time insync says "it is proven" or "it's a well known fact", let's just ignore the entire post.

I've been doing that for a while now, but the rest of you keep getting drawn into these ridiculous he-says-she-says arguments. It's a bit aggrivating to see all that talent being sidetracked by someone with an IQ which matches his shoe size.

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:40, Blogger James B. said...

We could play the nesync party game. Every time he says "it is proven" without offering even a shred of proof, you have to take a drink.

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:43, Blogger Alex said...

Wow. Thank god it's the long weekend, otherwise I'd be getting charged with AWOL the next day :)

Alright, who's ready to play?

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:45, Blogger default.xbe said...

Alright, who's ready to play?

the rest of us are drunk already

 
At 01 July, 2006 00:50, Blogger shawn said...

We could play the nesync party game. Every time he says "it is proven" without offering even a shred of proof, you have to take a drink.

We'd all die of alcohol poisoning in a single thread.

 
At 01 July, 2006 07:17, Blogger telescopemerc said...

We'd all die of alcohol poisoning in a single thread.

Its a hazzard of any CT drinking game:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56850

 
At 01 July, 2006 09:18, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Calling the NIST reports "propaganda" is ridiculous. A forensics investigation is not propaganda. Objective things like this have to be editorialized before they can become "propaganda"; by definition.

 
At 01 July, 2006 10:04, Blogger Richard said...

Also how is someones proper quote propaganda? Nessy has never admitted that LC misquoted tons of people. I personally think that's the most damaging thing about LC. Either they were to stupid to research the proper quotes or they intentionally misquoted them. Either way how can you trust a film lke LC after that. Nesnyc will never admit that and for that he is a fool.

 
At 19 October, 2007 22:48, Blogger Jason said...

Mark Roberts is either uninformed, blind or on the Payroll... making fun of people is easier than propping up incorrect math, science and politics... if you weren't any of the above, you wouldn't bother trying so hard. I don't like Britney Spears, so I ignore her. I don't like stinky cheese, so I don't eat it. I don't like fools, so I don't suffer tham gladly. Get a life. If you devoted your time to...volunteering at an animal shelter instead of de-bunking {poorly} the 9/11 Truth Movement, you may actually feel more fulfilled... he who smelt it, dealt it dude. You're wrong, get over it.

 
At 06 May, 2011 05:30, Blogger wtrautmann said...

i never saw such a lame debunking.
most of your sources are a joke. and you keep insulting the direcots of Loose Change. Is that how a serious critisism looks like?
you are the moron. you did not even debunkend a single thing in the movie.
stop tryin this.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home