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.
posted by James B. @ 7:10 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
And I still think Steven Jones is a nutjob...
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.
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
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.
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.
And the award for worst analogy of the day goes to....
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.
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.
Wow, it is so easy that you can't come up with a single example in the more than 200 posts we have made.
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.
alex,
he means "we" as in him, and all of the voices in his head.
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.
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."
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.
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?
I'm sure he understand the word "circular".
"Logic"....not so much.
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.
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".
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.
So, have any CTers actually pointed out even one factual misstatement, lie, distortion, misquote, fake expert, or logical fallacy on SLC yet?
Just asking.
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.
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.
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?
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.
in another side-note... perhaps we should contact Avery via his Myspace and ask him to comment?
You have got to love the top line.
"mark roberts is CIA"
Gee, is someone a little paranoid?
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.
"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.
"Bin Laden is a creation of the Zionists"
Correction, Zionist controlled media and US ZOG.
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!
...
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.
Oh chf, I do realize the US gave barely any weapons to Saddam (I believe it was one percent of his imports).
Oh come on Nutman, the lies and distortions of Screw Loose Change are so numerous and obvious, they don't even bear mentioning...
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.
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
<< Home