Open Mike Night at Screw Loose Change
As you can probably tell from some of our recent posts, Pat and I have been following the goings-on at the Loose Change forums and other CT hangouts. One thing I have noticed is how they automatically discount sites such as this, 911 Myths, the Screw Loose Change video and Mark Roberts' "viewer's guide" as "debunked". In fact one 9/11 "scholar" remarkably announced that 9/11 Myths was "disinformation" and "phony", even though he admitted he had never even read it.
I have never actually seen an example though. We have gone to great trouble to provide readers with scores, if not hundreds of examples, of factual misstatements, lies, distortions, misquotes, fake experts and logical fallacies in Loose Change, but I have yet to see a single example of any of us doing this.
So I am inviting (actually requesting) all of our CT readers to please point out how we are doing this, because I am genuinely curious. E-mail your conspiracy theory pals for help if you want. Please point out how we are doing this. And please, stick to actual facts, I don't care whether you think I am rude because I called Steven Jones a nutjob, or whether Markyx thinks the music sucks. All of us have taken stated positions on hundreds of issues of fact, if you want to contest those, then please address those, rather than quibbling over our politeness.
Unlike the Loose Change people, I will not delete your posts simply because you disagree. In fact if anyone thinks they can do a good enough job, e-mail me, and if you can make a credible point I might give you your own post. But as I said, stick to facts, point out how we are demonstrably wrong, not just the typical circular logic that you think "WTC7 was a controlled demolition, because you think it looked just like a controlled demolition". Also please, no spamming, if you want to make a direct argument against us, that is great, but no cutting and pasting 5,000 of your favorite links.