Wednesday, June 21, 2006

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.

65 Comments:

At 21 June, 2006 19:44, Blogger MarkyX said...

I still think the music sucks :)

 
At 21 June, 2006 19:46, Blogger James B. said...

And I still think Steven Jones is a nutjob...

 
At 21 June, 2006 19:48, Blogger MarkyX said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 June, 2006 19:50, Blogger MarkyX said...

And life will go on.

It's kind of funny that I get a lot "LOOES CHANEE SHOWS FACS, U DONT" comments but never give a specific example on my video.

Maybe this entry will finally end that. Or maybe not.

 
At 21 June, 2006 19:57, Blogger default.xbe said...

CTers are welcome to come by the forums too

im maintaing the same "open comment" policy on the forums that james and pat have here

an dyes, i think the music sucks too :)

 
At 21 June, 2006 20:16, Blogger Falco98 said...

on a related note, this guy is being really kinda difficult. follow the thread back and note the circular logic, and dismissive "SLC only asks questions, it doesn't debunk anything". I'm surprised he hasn't started deleting my posts yet, honestly, so i gotta give him credit for that.

 
At 21 June, 2006 20:24, Blogger default.xbe said...

isnt LC supposed to debunk the official story by "asking questions?"

i guess whats good for the goose isnt good for the gander

 
At 21 June, 2006 20:56, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Personally, I think you're nitpicking. A while ago there was a link to Gypsy Taub confronting Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission.

What Zelikow was saying was so amazing: That the 19 hijackers had "studied" our systems and that was how they managed to hijack 4 commercial aircraft and evade NORAD.

The question I have is: Is that possible? Could someone with no inside connections whatsoever "study" our systems? What did this "studying" consist of?

Griffin says that standard procedures would have had all 4 of those planes intercepted.
"It wasn't until a colleague sent Griffin an e-mail with Paul Thompson's timeline--an exact, minute-by-minute accounting of the events of Sept. 11 based entirely on mainstream media accounts--that he changed his mind. "The most glaring anomaly," Griffin now says, "was that none of the hijacked planes were intercepted, even though all of them would have been, had standard procedure been followed."

According to Gen. Ralph Eberhart, head of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), from the time the FAA senses something is wrong, it takes about a minute to contact NORAD, after which NORAD, Eberhart says, can scramble fighter jets "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States." So what happened on that morning?

The government has given three conflicting answers to this question."

http://bohemian.com/bohemian/06.14.06/david-ray-griffin-0624.html

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:04, Blogger default.xbe said...

What Zelikow was saying was so amazing: That the 19 hijackers had "studied" our systems and that was how they managed to hijack 4 commercial aircraft and evade NORAD.

pre-9/11 it was very easy to evade NORAD if you were already in US airspace, much liek its easy for an illegal immigrant to avoid border patrols in denver colorado

"within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States."

jets can be dispatched within a matter of minutes, that doesnt mean they can get anywhere in the US in a matter of minutes

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:05, Blogger MarkyX said...

Guys, you really need to link this.

Steven Jones is a nut.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:12, Blogger MarkyX said...

That the 19 hijackers had "studied" our systems and that was how they managed to hijack 4 commercial aircraft and evade NORAD.


You're talking about the same country that allows people from Mexico to simply climb over a fence. There was hardly any security at the borders or the airplanes. Pilots aren't even armed...does that sound like "high" security to you?


Is that possible? Could someone with no inside connections whatsoever "study" our systems? What did this "studying" consist of?


Al-Qaeda, maybe even bribed traitors, or it came with the training for getting that pilot license.


"The most glaring anomaly," Griffin now says, "was that none of the hijacked planes were intercepted, even though all of them would have been, had standard procedure been followed."


NORAD is not the Air Force. Get that out of your head. NORAD scrambles, meaning they scout. I have never seen one example of NORAD actually taking down a plane before in their own domestic airspace.


from the time the FAA senses something is wrong, it takes about a minute to contact NORAD, after which NORAD, Eberhart says, can scramble fighter jets "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States."


The question you should be asking is when did FAA make the call? They don't call NORAD 'as soon as possible' if a jet is going somewhat off-course.

And how much time is a 'matter of minutes' anyways?

Also, don't use Griffin, he is a theology PHD.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:14, Blogger avery dylan said...

What is Loose Change about?

About 91 minutes too long.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:28, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Basically, you're saying "anyone could have done it." So what was Zelikow talking about that those 19 men "analyzed our civil aviation system with care." And thats how they "penetrated our air defenses." They took a few flights and just "noticed" things? And then they go and hijack 4 commercial airliners based on that? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8888742751442686831

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:31, Blogger James B. said...

No surprise that the first CTer would address an issue which even Loose Change didn't bother to mention. I guess they have no issues with our actual arguments.

One could certainly make an argument that NORAD did not mount an effective response. This is, however, no more proof of a conspiracy than the fact that I got crappy service at Starbucks this morning is proof that there was a conspiracy to rip me off for a toffee nut mocha.

Regardless, this issue has already been debunked long ago in Popular Mechanics

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:34, Blogger James B. said...

Markyx, I mentioned that in my first "scholars" post. One could say a lot about the issues of the historical validity of Mormonism, in fact, not surprisingly, there are numerous sites dedicated soley to the subject, but it is not really something I want to get in-depth into here.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:35, Blogger MarkyX said...

Basically, you're saying "anyone could have done it."

Yep. You think boxcutters was fucked up tool to hijack with? Try a teddy bear. Look at Feb 1998.

http://www.emergency-management.net/airterror_acts.htm

Pre 9/11, security was shit at airplanes.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:38, Blogger shawn said...

And then they go and hijack 4 commercial airliners based on that?

Were you born yesterday? Planes have been hijacked dozens of times, and those people never needed an "in" to figure out how to do it.

 
At 22 June, 2006 05:08, Blogger LT said...

"and if you can make a credible point I might"

Now your being cruel. We all know they can't make a credible point...

 
At 22 June, 2006 05:41, Blogger JoanBasil said...

You know, there really were people who sold shares in the Brooklyn Bridge and there were people who bought them.

 
At 22 June, 2006 05:46, Blogger Alex said...

And the award for worst analogy of the day goes to....

 
At 22 June, 2006 05:48, Blogger MarkyX said...

You know, there really were people who sold shares in the Brooklyn Bridge and there were people who bought them.

That's great, now please stop avoiding our statements.

 
At 22 June, 2006 06:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

It's very easy. You people actually believe the lies that Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" pulled off 9/11. We know and have established this is a bold faced lie by the US government. Since you guys keep on pushing this, it means you are promoting rumors, distortions, lies and outright fabrications of evidence. It can't get any simpler than that.

 
At 22 June, 2006 07:39, Blogger telescopemerc said...

It's very easy. You people actually believe the lies that Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" pulled off 9/11. We know and have established this is a bold faced lie by the US government.

Actually, no, you have not established that. You claim to have established that, but your standards of evidence are notoriously weak when it comes to things you want to beleive.

 
At 22 June, 2006 07:50, Blogger James B. said...

Wow, it is so easy that you can't come up with a single example in the more than 200 posts we have made.

 
At 22 June, 2006 07:58, Blogger Alex said...

And stop using the word "we". I've got no love for the CT movement, but most of them aren't near as nutty as you. Don't pretend you speak for them.

 
At 22 June, 2006 08:33, Blogger Jujigatami said...

alex,

he means "we" as in him, and all of the voices in his head.

 
At 22 June, 2006 08:42, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I think you got responses but just so as not to be lazy, I'll take up 3:

1. The Purdue University simulations - are these endorsed by the 9/11 Commission for exact facts? I don't see anything I can rely on for exact duplication of the Pentagon crash by simulation but I do see that it was funded by a grant and that is of interest.

2. Jamie McIntyre quotes - Why the hell was he saying all that about the absence of airplane parts and why the very clearly puzzled expressions and now he's saying theres something outrageous about reading into his statements at the time (and he looks SCARED now, more scared than on 9/11). Hey, this is normal to judge the credibility of witnesses and he doesn't look too credible. What would he say under oath? Probably that he doesn't know anything for sure.

3. The put options - Its too long to copy here but you should look at Griffin p. 54. The way the 9/11 Commission dealt with the put options was to filter it all through the "Al Qaeda did it" conclusion. The 9/11 report is on-line so if you have a link to where they nailed down proof that the options were innocuous, I'll read it but I have the same questions about this that Griffin poses.

---------

I've mentioned a few times that I think it smells that Ziad Jarrah's "farewell letter" to his girlfriend of 5 years was misaddressed and therefore returned and intercepted by the FBI. Do you find that believable? Particularly in light of stuff like the Niger uranium forgeries and piles of other lies the last 5 years. The elites are so contemptuous of the American people that they tell us any lies they want and it just has to serve their purpose of the moment with no accountability afterwards.

 
At 22 June, 2006 08:58, Blogger James B. said...

1. I don't know, but it was done by qualified people. There was also a study carried out by the ASCE, but you CTs like to ignore that too. Steven Jones was obviously not endosed by the 9/11 commission, and yet you accept his scientific conclusions.

2. Someone asked him if he saw the plane on the lawn, and he said no. What is unusual about that? It wasn't sitting on the lawn. Only minutes later he describes how the plane went into the Pentagon and the evidence he saw that supports this. LC leaves out that part. Why is that?

3. You have a certain point in that the commission was talking about ties to Al Qaeda, and not "shadowy Jewish businessmen", but it is also true that the trades were standard transactions carried out by institutional investors, and even involved large purchases of stock. The larger point is that LC selectively cites reports from September 2001, and ignores all other contraty evidence found since then.

That is the best you can come up with? Well, I give you credit for trying at least.

BTW The Niger forgeries are irrelevent. Nobody ever used them for anything. Bush's State of the Union Address was based on completely separate British intelligence, which the Brits stand by to this day.

 
At 22 June, 2006 09:35, Blogger MarkyX said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 June, 2006 09:36, Blogger MarkyX said...

Looks like Steven Jones might be backing away from the thermite theory

http://www.phillyimc.org/en/2006/06/25004.shtml


Just a quick clarification: As I said in my talk at the Chicago conference, and in my remarks to Alex Jones, the results so far on the analysis of the previously-molten metal samples are PRELIMINARY. I emphasized that, in fact.

The samples are predominantly iron, so we can rule out the 'molten aluminum' hypothesis with a high degree of confidence. There is very little chromium, so that the 'molten structural steel' hypothesis is highly suspect. Yes, there is sulfur -- but proving the use of 'thermate' positively will certainly require further analyses and comparisons with samples of known origin (such as thermate-products). And that analysis takes a lot of time, unfortunately. Patience is a virtue.

 
At 22 June, 2006 10:39, Blogger nesNYC said...

Actually, no, you have not established that. You claim to have established that, but your standards of evidence are notoriously weak when it comes to things you want to beleive.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle? Where's proof that Osama hired 19 Arabs to stand down NORAD and demolish 3 buildings, one of which was a CIA headquarters, via controlled demolition? I'd like to see that "proof."

 
At 22 June, 2006 10:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

Wow, it is so easy that you can't come up with a single example in the more than 200 posts we have made.

Because that is your key weakness. Again, it is a well established fact that the US/Zionist propaganda apparatus has been building up the Bin Laden myth since before 9/11 just so 9/11 could be pulled off without anyone really questions who would have a motive. That in itself is proof that there was foreknowledge of the attacks way in advance of them. Bin Laden and the fictional "Al Qaeda" never had .001% of the power the Zionist media makes them out to have.

I mean, use your freaken brains!!!! PLEASE! Two invasions of two different countries and were are we? Did it pan out? Is the "threat" diminished? In fact, now the "trend" is to go after domestic sympathizers no matter how fabricated the evidence may be. Look at all the recent "terror" busts in the UK and Canada, even the US, that fell apart under the light of scrutiny. POINT BLANK, "Al Qaeda" does not exist and I'd be very surprised if the US military was able to actually capture and stop them. No matter how many Zarkawis get blown to smithereens, the media will always play up the next one and the next one... Ever heard of Emanuel Goldstein of 1984? That is the reality that the US/Zionist government is playing on you fools. You let yourselves be deceived at your own peril. Go ahead, go die in a foreign land protecting the interests of the Zionist mafia. Poor fools.

 
At 22 June, 2006 10:59, Blogger James B. said...

Again, it is a well established fact that the US/Zionist propaganda apparatus has been building up the Bin Laden myth since before 9/11 just so 9/11 could be pulled off without anyone really questions who would have a motive. That in itself is proof that there was foreknowledge of the attacks way in advance of them. Bin Laden and the fictional "Al Qaeda" never had .001% of the power the Zionist media makes them out to have.


Do the words "circular logic" mean anything to you?

 
At 22 June, 2006 11:15, Blogger Alex said...

I'm sure he understand the word "circular".


"Logic"....not so much.

 
At 22 June, 2006 11:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

Do the words "circular logic" mean anything to you?

Sure, cause that's how your brain functions so that's what you see at every turn. You'll come around eventually, no one is THAT stupid.

 
At 22 June, 2006 11:46, Blogger James B. said...

Mr. Nintendo Entertainment System,

There are certain well established facts that generally require no proof or argument in a debate. For example:

"Gravity causes things to fall"

"The earth is round"

"Zambia is a country in sub-Saharan Africa"

"It really really really hurts when you slam your hand in the door"

"Al Franken should never be permitted to make a movie again"

Then again, there are assertions which are so bizarre and contrary to the generally accepted view, that detailed proof and argument must be given for them. For example:

"Bin Laden is a creation of the Zionists"

This cannot simply be brushed off as "well established".

 
At 22 June, 2006 11:51, Blogger JoanBasil said...

James,
You're not serious. The president and the National Security adviser were both using that "smoking gun that turns into a mushroom cloud" crap. Cheney was pushing that Saddam hadn't given up his nuclear weapons program. Who the heck forged those documents? Thats important. And has the British government revealed its source for the phony Niger uranium claims? Or are we supposed to trust that liar, Blair, that his source is different from the same forged documents we already know about?

1. Re the Purdue stuff, if you can't be sure of it for accuracy and duplication of the Pentagon crash, why are you endorsing it? Prof. Jones has put out a paper and I'd like to see it examined and reviewed by loads of scientists and hear what they have to say about it. Thats a long way from saying I "accept his scientific conclusions."

2. You were the one who brought up MacIntyre and I said he'd make a lousy witness under oath. That would be interesting, though, to see him confronted with himself on that video and have to explain his puzzlement vs his current insistence that everything in the official version is consistent with what he said then.

3. So what if they're big institutional investors? Wall Street is full of crooks of the worst kind. Its too much to copy here, but you have to read Griffin starting at page 54 or you're just dismissing it off the top of your head.

 
At 22 June, 2006 11:55, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle?

Calling it what? If you meant 'black' the answer is 'no'


Where's proof that Osama hired 19 Arabs to stand down NORAD


Osama didn't hire anyone to stand down NORAD.


and demolish 3 buildings, one of which was a CIA headquarters, via controlled demolition?


Osama's boys didn't do that either. They used planes.


I'd like to see that "proof."


Then you'd better get started, because you've just asked for proof of your own delusions.

 
At 22 June, 2006 11:58, Blogger Jujigatami said...

So, have any CTers actually pointed out even one factual misstatement, lie, distortion, misquote, fake expert, or logical fallacy on SLC yet?

Just asking.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:07, Blogger James B. said...

If you don't even know his source, how do you know Blair is lying about this? Because Valerie Wilson's husband knows better based off his week of drinking mint tea?

The Pentagon crash reconstruction is endorsed by the entire American Society of Civil Engineers, as opposed to Jones' research, which has not been endorsed by a "single" civil engineer.

Macintyre said that he saw evidence the plane went into the Pentagon, including parts of the wing. He just also said that the plane itself was not sitting on the Pentagon lawn. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent or illogical about that. He would make a great witness. The fact that you have to quote mine him to make your point proves that.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:35, Blogger Nutman said...

lol this is hillarious, we are getting all the normal CTer bullshit, but not a single one has actually even attempted to do what you guys have asked, no one has even attempted to bring up anything even remotely factual. Just goes to show you just how smart these CTers are, and how much "evidence" they have.

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:06, Blogger shawn said...

You know, there really were people who sold shares in the Brooklyn Bridge and there were people who bought them.

J-j-j-j-oke!!!

You people actually believe the lies that Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" pulled off 9/11. We know and have established this is a bold faced lie by the US government.

You're a walking, typing logical fallacy. You can't state something and then say "it's been proven" or "it's a well established fact" WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF. Are you from opposite world or something? You state something, when in fact it's the exact opposite of what you're stating.

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:08, Blogger JoanBasil said...

So the British government got a phony story about Saddam and Niger uranium and our government got forgeries about Saddam and Niger uranium and somehow this makes both sets of politicians more credible????? That they all swallowed this nonsense, "crude forgeries," and the unlikely story of that closely controlled consortium dealing with Saddam? How long did it take the IAEA to say the stuff was bogus? I think they said people could do it on their own with a Google search for the names of Niger officials.

MacIntyre would get on the witness stand and say he doesn't know what he saw.

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:16, Blogger shawn said...

That they all swallowed this nonsense, "crude forgeries," and the unlikely story of that closely controlled consortium dealing with Saddam?

So you're told something that makes sense from a trusted source and you assume it's wrong?

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:17, Blogger shawn said...

I doubt you know of it, but you do realize Saddam had a nuclear reactor going before the Israelis did the right thing and took it out? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to assume he'd want nukes. He did fancy himself as some kind of pan-Arab leader, and a bomb would certainly up his stature.

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger Falco98 said...

in another side-note... perhaps we should contact Avery via his Myspace and ask him to comment?

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:36, Blogger James B. said...

You have got to love the top line.

"mark roberts is CIA"

Gee, is someone a little paranoid?

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:38, Blogger shawn said...

in another side-note... perhaps we should contact Avery via his Myspace and ask him to comment?

That David Leakey (who comments) is especially nuts. You can go through there and find dozens of people who believe the most insane things on the planet.

 
At 22 June, 2006 14:53, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Re Israel's strike on the Osirak reactor in'81 (I think the General Assembly condemned it overwhelmingly), I found this post by doing a google search; its from a question on the BBC website. It makes sense.

"Did the US bomb the Soviet or Chinese nuclear systems (evil dictatorships)? Have the Indians bombed the Pakistanis (some unstable regimes)? Have the British bombed the French (centuries of hate and war)? Why not bomb N. Korea now? It is pure paranoid speculation that Iraq would nuke nuclear-armed Israel. Iraq did not use chemical warheads in Scuds during "ongoing" war. Deterrence apparently works."

We're in a great big mess by following the Israeli "pre-emptive" model. They're a small client state with US backing to the hilt no matter what they do but we don't have a sugar daddy.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:07, Blogger CHF said...

wow...49 posts and not one CTers has taken up the original post's challenge.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:30, Blogger shawn said...

"Did the US bomb the Soviet or Chinese nuclear systems (evil dictatorships)? Have the Indians bombed the Pakistanis (some unstable regimes)? Have the British bombed the French (centuries of hate and war)? Why not bomb N. Korea now? It is pure paranoid speculation that Iraq would nuke nuclear-armed Israel. Iraq did not use chemical warheads in Scuds during "ongoing" war. Deterrence apparently works."

Forget about Iraq slinging SCUDs into Israel are we? Or the multiple wars of (attempted) Israeli elimination?

It's only logical to think Saddam would use the reactor to build nukes (he had no need for nuclear energy, his is an oil-rich country).

And who cares what the UN (or in this case, the US as well) says? The UN has passed more resolutions against Israel than any other nation, and not rightly so.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

"Bin Laden is a creation of the Zionists"

Correction, Zionist controlled media and US ZOG.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:30, Blogger nesNYC said...

Forget about Iraq slinging SCUDs into Israel are we? Or the multiple wars of (attempted) Israeli elimination?

Forget most of those weapons systems came from the US are we? LOL!

...

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:10, Blogger CHF said...

Scuds are Soviet weapons you fucking moron.

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:39, Blogger shawn said...

Scuds are Soviet weapons you fucking moron.

I wonder how many errors of fact nesnyc has made through this blog. It's gotta be over a hundred.

The Scud was developed by Makeyev Design Bureau, a Russian missle design facility.

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:53, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:57, Blogger CHF said...

shawn,

this idiot says "most" Iraqi weapons were from the US.

Try "barely any."

Iraqi small arms: AK-47s and RPG-7s (classic communist Cold War weapons)

tanks: T-55/62/72/PT-76 (USSR), Type-59/69 (China), AMX30 (France), Chieftain (UK)

APCs: mostly Soviet/Chinese models

Air force: MiG-21/23/25/29 (USSR), J-7 (China), Mirage F1 (France)

Helicopters: Hinds (USSR), Gazelles (France/UK) and Bells (USA)

Artillery: mostly Soviet and some Euro models

Chemical weapons: about 50% from West Germany, 20%+ USA, and the rest an assortment of east/west Europe.

The "USA armed Saddam to the teeth" claim is a favorite lefty/CT talking point even though it's a load of absolute shit.

Saddam's biggest weapons source was always the USSR. Do these fools ever wonder why all the Iraqi insurgents have AKs and RPGs?

But then this is the same crowd that can't tell the difference between a B-25 and a B-52 so this hardly comes as a surprise.

Just more of the same: rambling on about stuff they know fuck all about.

 
At 22 June, 2006 20:06, Blogger default.xbe said...

if two peopel shaking hands is proof of an arms deal then the USSR must have got their weapons
from us too

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:34, Blogger shawn said...

Oh chf, I do realize the US gave barely any weapons to Saddam (I believe it was one percent of his imports).

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:55, Blogger Nutman said...

would you people get back on topic who cares about saddam, I'm still waiting for some moron CTer to even attempt the origional challenge, yet no one has, where's all your proven facts and evidence now ya nutjobs.

 
At 22 June, 2006 22:44, Blogger James B. said...

Oh come on Nutman, the lies and distortions of Screw Loose Change are so numerous and obvious, they don't even bear mentioning...

 
At 23 June, 2006 08:07, Blogger Nutman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:55, Blogger Alex said...

pst, nutty, James B. IS one of the makers of Screw Loose Change :p

I think he was trying to pull a bit of the ol' tounge-in-cheek humour there.

You'll have to learn to read between the lines around here. We tend to use a lot of sarcasm.

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:54, Blogger Nutman said...

whoops i didn't know that

 
At 23 June, 2006 12:56, Blogger James B. said...

LOL I was just trying to help everyone out by giving the "alternative" viewpoint, since the conspiracy theorists won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole.

Maybe we should post this challenge on their forum. Until it gets deleted...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home