Tuesday, December 19, 2006

The Great Debate: The Hardfire Edit

The Hardfire edit of the Mark Roberts -Loose Change debate is now available, here and here. It doesn't look any better for the Loosers.

15 Comments:

At 19 December, 2006 10:35, Blogger CHF said...

I don't know how these clows will be able to show themselves in public after this debacle.

Avery admitted his movie was a joke full of lies.

Game over.

 
At 19 December, 2006 11:46, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Game over for the movie perhaps, but not for the Truth.

 
At 19 December, 2006 11:59, Blogger Alex said...

Yes, like a chicken with it's head cut off, the twoof movement keeps on going....

 
At 19 December, 2006 12:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

The 9/11 Truth movement didn't begin with the movie Loose Change and it does not end with it.

 
At 19 December, 2006 12:51, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Funny, because the Truth movement makes many of the claims that Loose Change and Co. do - CD of 1,2,7, no plane at Pentagon, Flight 93 not crashing in Shanksville.

So, BG, what in Loose Change is wrong, and what is "right" by the "Truth" movement's standards?

 
At 19 December, 2006 12:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the truth movement started with that holocaust denier Hufschmid. And i haven't seen him in a while.

 
At 19 December, 2006 15:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...
Funny, because the Truth movement makes many of the claims that Loose Change and Co. do - CD of 1,2,7, no plane at Pentagon, Flight 93 not crashing in Shanksville.

So, BG, what in Loose Change is wrong, and what is "right" by the "Truth" movement's standards?


Here's my short answer (I have to leave in a few minutes):

9/11 Truth should equal:

Level 1:
1) Questions about lead up to 9/11

2) Questions during 9/11 behavior of individuals (alleged preps, faa, local, state, federal, military)

3) Questions about aftermath including

a) Anthrax Attack
b) Patriot Act
c) Wellstone Crash
d) DC Sniper
e) plans for Afghanistan and Iraq Wars
f) 9/11 Commission
g) Madrid / London bombings
h) blank...
i) Lies (from EPA) of safety of Lower Manhatten
j) odd statements by Bush
g) Treastment of Detainees in Wars and Alleged Terror Suspects
h) Military Commission Act
i) Patriot Act Renewal
j) Mainstream Media Cover-up
k) Alternative Media ignorance or hostility
l) poor fact checking and quality for M. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
m) Feinberg led Victim's Compensation Fund
n) treatment of 9/11 lawsuits
o) treatment of Silverstein and Ground Zero
p) treatment of cleanup issues at Ground Zero
q) FEMA / NIST Reports
r) Connection with OK City bombing and Cover Up
s) Rumsfeld's statements about Flight 93 being shot down
t) How prep list was almost immediately available by FBI
u) other research that cast doubt about how hijackers "slipped thru defenses", odd connections, Saudi connection,

The fact that Loose Change brings up the Northwoods doc, and presents particular approaches towards the events and alternative explanations in no way undermines or rules out a huge number of unresolved questions that seem to lead to the conclusion that the official story is a lie.

 
At 19 December, 2006 15:10, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

Loose Change contains the very corner-stones of the movement.

- Demolition of WTC

- No Flight 93 crash

- No Flight 77 at the Pentagon

If LC is bullshit then your version of the truth is bullshit.

 
At 19 December, 2006 16:00, Blogger shawn said...

Game over for the movie perhaps, but not for the Truth.

Oh, too true.

The problem is we're the ones on the side of the truth.

 
At 19 December, 2006 16:53, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The truth movement is like a wave. It started off a while back, just like a ripple...then it grew...it peeked with LC and the 5th anni of 9/11, and now with the wave crested, and falling forward, it will just crash into the shoreline of rationality and logic, and then receed just like the JFK crap...

TAM

 
At 19 December, 2006 17:07, Blogger shawn said...

hahah Bermas doesn't realize he's one of the useful idiots.

 
At 19 December, 2006 18:03, Blogger shawn said...

It's pissing me off whenever Ron or Mark bring in a fact and Bermas says "I don't agree with that." It doesn't matter, moron, it's a fact.

And I love when Mark says "that's why they aren't engineers". It's what I was thinking the second those mouth-breathers started going on about how they couldn't understand how the "30 floors" destroyed the "70 floors". Maybe you two should've stayed awake in high school physics to learn about things like force.

 
At 19 December, 2006 18:09, Blogger shawn said...

Jason, it cannot fall over on its side. Why does the moron keep saying this. He has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the collapses, this is unreal.

Truth movement, you're dead.

 
At 19 December, 2006 19:43, Blogger CHF said...

Jason, it cannot fall over on its side.

Nonsense. Don't you recall that amazing model that a twoofer made last week?

 
At 20 December, 2006 07:39, Blogger muckers said...

As an aside to the whole debate and its content, I'm quite pleased that Jason and Dylan managed to approach this debate with a degree of maturity.

The TV debate they had with Popular Mechanics was embarrassing to watch not because of either side's view but because of the way the LC guys, in particular Jason, acted simply brushing off PM's statements and calling them liers.

True, they did do this to an extent this time around by saying they didn't agree and then just regurgitating the same point that had just been contested, but it seems this was a relatively mature debate, no?

I'm quite surprised at things that they said during the interview, such as their view that perhaps the top half could've tipped over but not the 60, 70 floors below when it is implied in their movie that the buildings should have remained intact.

One of the many things they "don't understand" - the idea of a fulcrum/pivot point.

Shawn, I have to agree - these guys should really take the time to familiarise themselves with the physics behind the collapses because it's clear that the only thing they've looked at is the calculation for freefall speed which is irrelevant in this particular point.

Hell, I've done physics up the minimum level required by legal education in the UK and I'm more aware of the science - we covered it aged 15. And these guys are, what, 22?

I'm not going to stoop to personal attacks and call these guys stupid but you'd think it'd be a given that you'd at least look at the relevant base knowledge behind a situation before making some rather rash claims.

You'd think. ...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home