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.
posted by Pat @ 6:43 PM
22 comments
22 Comments:
I never got how people mistook the inner hole for the outer.
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.
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.
"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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
. 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.
Bush Administration refuses to explain why it dragged this country into the most senseless war in its history.
Dubya was president during Vietnam?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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).
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.
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
<< Home