Saturday, June 10, 2006

Loose Change In Real Life

I share offices with some fairly political folks. Right now it's 3 liberals 3 conservatives. The receptionist is probably conservative (married to a cop), but she works for the liberals so she's non-committal.

No kidding, yesterday afternoon I had completed an assignment and was just catching up on the email when I heard two of the libs talking about "the Pentagon" and "16-foot hole". Wasn't too hard to figure out what they were discussing, but I tried to nonchalant it. Turned out my buddy F, who's a very smart person, had seen the movie the night before and he was pushing it on his partner.

Now, when I started questioning F on the movie, he began to backtrack, insisting that he wanted to watch the movie again. And his partner, who's probably more liberal than F, did not seem really interested in the film. I did ask him to google "Wally Miller" to see how much he supports the conspiracy theory.

I'm not kidding, F is a genuinely smart guy, and legitimately a moderate Democrat (he opposed Dean in late 2003 as unelectable, for example). Now of course the movie starts out with the advantage that he's inclined to believe the worst of the Bush Administration. You know how it is; if you believe that Bush lied to get us into Iraq and kill over 2500 Americans, is it that much harder to jump to the conclusion that he killed 3,000 Americans to get to that point?

It's easy to say that only the squirrels are picking this up, but it's not true. Congrats, "Truthers". I'll admit that this thing is going mainstream now.

32 Comments:

At 10 June, 2006 19:26, Blogger shawn said...

I never got how people mistook the inner hole for the outer.

 
At 10 June, 2006 19:54, Blogger debunking911 said...

Don't mistake the liberals for these loons. Many are libertarian. Some are green but you'll be supprized how many liberals don't buy this nonsense. I go to liberal boards and see the debates. I'm a flaming liberal and I didn't believe this nonsense for a minute. If you recall there were nutbags on the right who said Clinton killed Brown and sold weapons to china even though it was the companies responsibility to make sure the technology didn't get into the hands of china. He'll, there right wingers in the media who believe Clinton was given Bin Ladin even after the 911 commission said:

"Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

The claims are from a former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- so they rather believe the sudaness officials than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

We have loons on all sides.

 
At 10 June, 2006 20:01, Blogger shawn said...

We have loons on all sides.

Quite true. The extremes of both sides seem to have a common interest in these anti-government conspiracy theories.

 
At 11 June, 2006 07:09, Blogger Pat said...

Oh, debunking911 I certainly know there are folks from both sides who believe in the CT, but it's like the Clinton death list reversed. There were liberal nuts who believed Clinton had Vince Foster murdered, but there were a heck of a lot more conservatives, because they were predisposed to believe the worst of Bill and Hillary. So it is that more of the "Truthers" are going to be liberal; they're predisposed to believe the worst of GWB.

 
At 11 June, 2006 07:23, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Its not a question of who you'd rather believe. Our government has given us plenty of reason to be skeptical of motives and how far some would go to to harm America's interests for secret motives. The Iraq War, for example, is a far worse betrayal of the American people than if Bush & Co. planned and executed every aspect of 9/11.

As for "liberals" and the liberal blogs, right now they only care about the election and this is not a good issue for the election. If they take back one House of Congress, especially the House of Representatives, expect them to do a 180 degree turn and reopen 9/11.

As Pat notes, Loose Change is spreading far and wide. You folks knock "conspiracy theorists" but what you want to believe is a
"coincidence theory." When people learn that no steel frame structures before or after 9/11/2001 ever collapsed from fire but on 9/11/2001, three did, can you really not see thats too much coincidence? Same with 2 planes (93 and 77) vaporizing in circumstances where one would expect to have lots of plane debris. And once you're into it, you find out things like the ones I mentioned here the other day, about the identities. The 2 Bukharis who were supposed to have rented the car in Boston but one of them had been dead a year - how did their names get into the mix? AS of now, the public is going to be skeptical of being told "Mohammed Atta" forged documents, bribed DMV people, etc. etc. with no back-up. Ziad Jarrah sending his girlfriend of 5 years in Germany a "farewell" letter and putting the wrong address on it so that it was returned and the FBI got it???

The 9/11 Commission did a deliberately lousy job because they were afraid of finding connections to places they didn't want to go. The only way its held up this long is that the public wasn't tuned in.

 
At 11 June, 2006 08:00, Blogger Alex said...

"If they take back one House of Congress, especially the House of Representatives, expect them to do a 180 degree turn and reopen 9/11."

Unlikely. The Dems may have some whacky ideas about economic planning and social programs, but they're not insane. If you want the government to re-open 9/11, you'll have to rip open the doors of several looney bins, and then elct those patients into office.

"When people learn that no steel frame structures before or after 9/11/2001 ever collapsed from fire but on 9/11/2001, three did, can you really not see thats too much coincidence?"

Well, in order to "see thats oo much coincidence" you'd first have to be an outright retard who doesn't realize that before 9-11 no building had been hit by a 767 moving at 550km/h either.

"Same with 2 planes (93 and 77) vaporizing in circumstances where one would expect to have lots of plane debris."

And once again you'd have to have a low enough IQ to actualy beleive that they vaporized, when we've got numerous photographs of the resultant wreckage.

"The 9/11 Commission did a deliberately lousy job because they were afraid of finding connections to places they didn't want to go."

Please don't pretend you've read the 9/11 Comissions report.

You know, my mother's gone the whole herbal-medicine flower-power vegan-diet tree-hugger route in recent years, so she's started buying into some of this nonsense too. When she tried to get me to watch LC, I laughed, sat down with her, and for the next 8-9 minutes proceeded to point out every mistake, misquotation, inconsistency, and irrelevant bit of info that I noticed. For the first 2-3 minues she kept replying with "well, yeah, ok, but it makes you think", or "well, maybe, but you have to ask questions anyway..". Strangely enough after those first 3 minutes she stopped that approach. And after 8-9 minutes she stopped the movie, said "yeah, you're right", and deleted it from the computer.

Unlike you, she's actualy capable of analyzing information in a rational manner. She doesn't keep insisting that the planes vaporized, or that the buildings couldn't have fallen at that speed, or that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Once she's presented with evidence which debunks those theories, she modifies her beleifs. You see, she's not a very dedicated member of the CT Church of 9/11.

 
At 11 June, 2006 09:28, Blogger Chad said...

Careful Joan. You start spreading that kind of crazy "truth" around here, you're gonna scare people into believing people that dumb actually got through grade school.

And we all know what people's first reaction is when confronted by fear.

They jump out of very tall buildings.

Ask yourself... are you ready to have those deaths on your conscience??

 
At 11 June, 2006 09:36, Blogger shawn said...

The Iraq War, for example, is a far worse betrayal of the American people than if Bush & Co. planned and executed every aspect of 9/11.


It's only a betrayal because you all thought it was "just the WMDs". Hell, when the war started I said "I doub tthey'll find anything, I just want Iraqis to be free of Saddam."

If they take back one House of Congress, especially the House of Representatives, expect them to do a 180 degree turn and reopen 9/11.

Not gonna happen, this isn't a Democrat/Republican issue.


When people learn that no steel frame structures before or after 9/11/2001 ever collapsed from fire but on 9/11/2001

The steel section of the Madrid tower collapsed. When did all these other building get smacked by fully fueled airplanes going in excess of five hundred miles per hour? There's no precedent for what happened on 9/11, so you moron have to stop pretend it's impossible.

Same with 2 planes (93 and 77) vaporizing in circumstances where one would expect to have lots of plane debris.

There was lots of debris in pictures, just the debris isn't massive. Wouldn't have been expected of either crash.

 
At 11 June, 2006 10:11, Blogger debunking911 said...

As the resident liberal who sees through these stupid conspiracy theories I have to clear up a point. What dems as a whole want is what even some republicans want. The other half of the 911 commission report which was supposed to have come long ago. HOW did the president use the intel. Did he chill dissenting views. There are just to many high level people who came out saying Bush was going to war no matter what. At a MINIMUM it should be investigated. The republicans have managed to twist the 911 report into something it wasn't. It was never supposed to point fingers. But what if a finger needed to be pointed?

Republicans used to hate nation building. They stopped Clinton from attacking Iraq back when Saddam HAD WMD according to David Kay, Bush's weapons inspector. Many republicans don't like what Bush did either. So if the dems get elected I don't think they would investigate CD. Many CTers blame Clinton as well. I don't think they would do a "Starr" style investigation.

 
At 11 June, 2006 10:55, Blogger Alex said...

Debunking: The only problem I'd have with that is that it'll probably detract even more from the war, and, with the current political climate being what it is, it'll probably turn into a witch-hunt. If Bush did shut down desenting views or ignore experts, it might be interesting to know, and I could see an investigation into that being conducted. But I don't see why it'd matter. Bush is the commander in chief; It's his job to make a decision, and ignore opposing viewpoints. The only way such a report could reveal anything damning is if it turns out he ignored ALL of his advisers, and simply went to war based on his own views, using tactics he wrote with a red crayon.

 
At 11 June, 2006 13:22, Blogger JoanBasil said...

alex,
my hunch is that you didn't convince your mother that you were right but she didn't feel like watching the movie with you any more because your mind is closed.

The Iraq War is a disaster. They just voted to throw another $60 billion down the drain (being polite) on it last week. Its like $300 billion and counting.

 
At 11 June, 2006 14:11, Blogger shawn said...

The Iraq War is a disaster.

Voter turnouts higher than in our own nation. And we don't have the threat of death hanging over our heads.

That speaks volumes.

 
At 11 June, 2006 14:14, Blogger shawn said...

just voted to throw another $60 billion down the drain (being polite) on it last week.

How is that being polite? You're pretty much saying "screw the Iraqis, they shoulda stuck with Saddam". You're disgusting.

 
At 11 June, 2006 14:16, Blogger Alex said...

My hunch is that your mind is closed to the posibility of anyone being more intelligent than you.

In point of fact, my mother later went on to debunk her friends CT's using the information I had provided her while watching Loose Change. So your hunches suck.

And as for your anti-war nonsense, the Korean war, which lasted only 3 years total, cost $263 billion in 1990 dollars. If we break that down to per-capita spending, korea cost $1,739 per person, whereas the current war has so far cost about $1,014 per person. Wanna talk about WW2? In the 4 years of WW2 in which the US was involved, you managed to spend $15,655 per person. And WW1? In one year, $1,911 per person.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

If you're going to bitch and complain, you'll have to base it on something other than economics.

 
At 11 June, 2006 15:20, Blogger Chad said...

If you're going to bitch and complain, you'll have to base it on something other than economics.

Alex, these people don't need anything to back up their claims. They have "innate senses" and "gut feelings".

And really... how can logic, reason and science compete with that?

 
At 11 June, 2006 17:00, Blogger debunking911 said...

Alex, don't you want to know if America was lied into war? I KNOW politicians lie but they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Especially when people have died over the this.

We learn from a retired Gen. today that the Taliban have grown and might start an offencive. If they do it will be a result of us taking troops out of Afghanistan to fight this war in Iraq which may also implode. Most dems, in in fact the world, supports the Afghanistan war. I could go through a list of failures prosecuting this war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Here is something to think about. According to the above piece Bush let Zarqawi go before the war just to have a reason to invade Iraq. An American was BEHEADED by this loon. Hundreds, if not thousands of Iraqi's died due to his piece of crap. It may be that because Zarqawi was left as a pretext for war that things are as bad as they are today. If anything investigating this now and showing the Iraqi's that democracy works will HELP the war effort, not hurt it.

What if the next president is democrat and they want to lie us into a war? What kind of message do we send to future presidents?

And what's the worse that can happen? Do you think the Iraqi's believe Bush now? Do you think anything will change? The wheels are set in motion and the only thing which may change is we let the next president know you can't pull this crap and get away with it.

 
At 11 June, 2006 17:15, Blogger debunking911 said...

Shawn, you're doing what the loosers do. You're using one dimensional thinking. "It's either this or that" mentality. We could have removed him by training Iraqi's in Egypt to take back their own country. Saddam was in a box and we can't go around "FREEING" everyone. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

This was also an experiment. The idea is to make Iraq a shinny democracy in the hopes that the other Arab countries will follow. I suggest to you it's disgusting to let people die in the thousands for an experiment EVEN IF IT WORKS. Who are WE to kill some people in order to bring freedom to others. I don't think America has a moral leg to stand on here. Do you think the father, brother, mother or sister of the innocent dead Iraqi thinks "That's OK, It's for a good reason. I can vote now." NO, this is what makes insurgents.

 
At 11 June, 2006 17:39, Blogger Alex said...

Yes it'd be nice to know if "we were lied into war". Especialy since many of my friends are now in Afghanistan, and may have to deal with increased Taliban operations. I personaly don't think lying had anything to do with it. Even if it did, I STILL think invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Mind you, if any of the things you suggest are true, I'd like to beat the shit out of Bush myself just on principle, however, it wouldn't change my views about the war itself. Just like if we found out tomorrow that Pearl Harbour had been staged by the US, FDR would be seen as the biggest criminal of all time, but it wouldn't change the fact that US involvement in WW2 was a good thing, and the right thing. So your proposed investigation is very low on my list of "things that should be done". Win the war first, then you can investigate Bush all you like.

Oh, and with this part:

"Do you think the father, brother, mother or sister of the innocent dead Iraqi thinks 'That's OK, It's for a good reason. I can vote now.' NO, this is what makes insurgents."

You're assuming that the years of sanctions hadn't had a similar efect. You're also assuming that most Iraqis are too stupid to realize that the coalition is there to help them. I'm sure all families who lose a member, or all Iraqis who lose a friend, to an accidental shooting would be heartbroken over it. I'm just as sure that most of them won't turn into crazed Jihadis because of that fact alone. I've lost friends to the war on terror, and I haven't made it a habit to go around killing innocent Muslims.

 
At 11 June, 2006 19:01, Blogger shawn said...

. I suggest to you it's disgusting to let people die in the thousands for an experiment EVEN IF IT WORKS.

The atom bomb was an experiment, too.

Over 100,000 people died per year under Saddam (I'm being conservative here) - extra people, from things like malnutrition/starvation/etc.

Far less die under us (although I'm sure there's people that think 350,000 people have died because of the war).

It's a game of numbers, we killed a helluva lot of people in the Last War Everyone Agreed On, but less died than would have had we allowed what was going on continue to go on.

"That's OK, It's for a good reason. I can vote now."

That's why they danced in the streets with their purple fingers.

 
At 11 June, 2006 19:15, Blogger JoanBasil said...

"As more facts emerge about September 11, many of Griffin's questions should be answered, but his suspicions will never be put to rest as long as the Bush Administration refuses to explain why it dragged this country into the most senseless war in its history. Until then, otherwise reasonable Americans will believe the Bush Administration benefited from 9/11, and there will always be a question about what really happened on that day." -
Robert Baer, a CIA case officer in the Middle East from 1976 to 1997, is the author of Sleeping With the Devil (Crown).

 
At 11 June, 2006 20:10, Blogger shawn said...

Bush Administration refuses to explain why it dragged this country into the most senseless war in its history.

Dubya was president during Vietnam?

 
At 11 June, 2006 20:12, Blogger shawn said...

Baer isn't exactly the best person to listen to. He's ok with a CIA-backed overthrow of Saddam, but not a visible war? He also thinks the evidence points to 9/11 being an inside job.

 
At 11 June, 2006 20:16, Blogger shawn said...

And as per our little discussion about the Iraq war, I think we should drop it and focus on the topic at hand. Dividing ourselves only makes the Losers/Truthers stronger.

 
At 11 June, 2006 21:15, Blogger default.xbe said...

Until then, otherwise reasonable Americans will believe the Bush Administration benefited from 9/11, and there will always be a question about what really happened on that day.

so then, by that logic, because i was named as a benefactor in my grandfathers will, i must have killed him, right?

 
At 12 June, 2006 04:04, Blogger JoanBasil said...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2006/0108trillion.htm

Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion (and thats assuming its over in 2010).

 
At 12 June, 2006 08:30, Blogger shawn said...

I don't actually care how much money it costs.

I'd rather have my taxes go to that than welfare or some other such nonsense.

 
At 12 June, 2006 10:52, Blogger James B. said...

We didn't take troops out of Afghanistan to send to Iraq, in fact we have more troops there now than before the Iraq War.

 
At 12 June, 2006 15:30, Blogger Alex said...

"And as per our little discussion about the Iraq war, I think we should drop it and focus on the topic at hand. Dividing ourselves only makes the Losers/Truthers stronger. "

Unlike the CT osers, we can have a logical and civilized debate over things we disagree on. I very much doubt that Debunking will start calling me a CIA Zionist shill just because we disagree on the benefits and costs of the Iraq war.

 
At 12 June, 2006 17:34, Blogger shawn said...

Unlike the CT osers, we can have a logical and civilized debate over things we disagree on.

True, but the Iraq war is more a discussion of opinion rathers than a discussion of facts (what happened on 9/11).

 
At 13 June, 2006 05:37, Blogger Alex said...

For the most part yes, but either way, I can't see it dividing us the way the CTers fragment. I can disagree with debunking on his views about Iraq without thinking less of him. In fact, I can even sympathize with his views to an extent.

 
At 15 June, 2006 06:34, Blogger Jose said...

its too bad you think this runs along political lines. President with a 35% approval score and he can do no wrong. Perhaps he should fly to Iraq or get Osama out of the shed....he needs the points.

Yea sure liberals and their wacky ways.

He did Lie about WMD's. He did blame it on British Intelligence. He did use 9/11 as a scapegoat to invade Iraq.

Its public record...just people decide not to belive it. Articles have been written about it in mainstream newspapers/Magazines but of course this is just the libral media trying to make our president look bad.

The president played fast and loose with the actual facts of the iraq war. (The CIA and FBI director told the president to cool down on the Iraq qoutes because none of could be proven...he put it in every speech he could)

Yes he pratically lied about the whole deal and to me that is far worse the a blow job in the oval office.

Yellowcake connection? Lies. Terrorist connections? More lies.
Nuke ability? Lies.

They even hired a media thinktank to spin it to the public just to get the jarheads to believe this crap.

All public record. just take a look.

Is this BLOG coming out of the Canon House office building?

 
At 15 June, 2006 15:52, Blogger Alex said...

No, see, when Clinton said "I did not have relations with a woman", THAT was a lie. We know that because he later admitted that he DID have relations with her. And since it was his behaviour in question, he was aware of the untruthfulness of his statements while making them. Ergo, he lied.

Bush on the other hand simply repeated evidence provided to him by his intelligence agencies, aides, and foreign intelligence agencies. Nobody has yet come even close to showing that he was aware which, if any, of that information was incorrect. Therefore nobody has come even close to showing that he lied. Yet you morons treat it as a foregone conclusion. And you're telling me that has nothing to do with "political lines"?

Hah.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home