Sunday, December 17, 2006

The Mark Roberts Loose Change Debate

He has just put it up, so I haven't had a chance to watch it, but Dylan Avery is posting clips from their recent debate.

106 Comments:

At 17 December, 2006 10:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

You are incorrect in saying that many 9/11 truthers deny militant Islamic Fundamentalism that would do harm to Americans and Westerners.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

Your point about the 1993 bombing is not a strong one.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hardfire host shows huge bias.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this. It shows extremely clearly the GS bankrupt case.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice to see dylan is saying and i quote"Loose change really is not a fair representation of the 9/11 truth movement"

He even admits it has numerous errors in it.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

You support the theory that that trench was the crash site of Flight 93. A bullet??

You are funny.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

I appreciate you willingness to debate and I respect that you are following your moral compass, which is the most that can be asked of anyone.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BG u moron, he was refering to the same speed of the plane crashing as the speed of a bullet.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gary Popkin has not dug into the evidence very deeply.

He doesn't seem to want to believe anything other than the GS, so he doesn't.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,

Compliments on the mistaken hijacker evidence. 1 point for GS.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gary Popkin uses silly "government is just incompetent" excuse. Popkin is comparing apples to oranges.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason and Dylan come across really well.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark,


You are simply wrong about the 9/11 Commission report begin a good explanation for the highjacker stories.

Dylan has a huge point about KSM.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, wow.

The show's host doesn't even hide his bias. He's recommending the Pop Mechanics book.

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh and he also says u can watch the movie loose change, so whats your points BG

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:00, Blogger Falco98 said...

You are incorrect in saying that many 9/11 truthers deny militant Islamic Fundamentalism that would do harm to Americans and Westerners.

uhmmm... you better wake up, buddy. that one is completely indefensible. I will allow you to offer us proof, though... good luck.

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:01, Blogger telescopemerc said...

BG's point would seem to be that he can be far more biased than those he attacks as being biased.

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:05, Blogger Dean Malenko Eats Dogs said...

"How do you know they're ruthless?"

Is Jason really that dumb?

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:10, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

Bermas totally destroyed Strawman Gravy.

Your confirmation bias is astounding

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:10, Blogger Falco98 said...

Mark,

while debunking their claims of wally miller saying "there were no bodies there" (in shanksville), i think you missed a big chance to quote them the rest of that interview where he went on to describe the body parts, etc, which especially kills the CT's inferences from his quotes...

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:24, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Bermas totally destroyed Strawman Gravy.

Your confirmation bias is astounding


Oooh, there goes another irony meter.

Has P'doh even figured out what a strawman is?

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:27, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

telescopeburke a strawman is when you attribute a weak argument to your opponent and then refute it. Thereby giving the impression you have refuted their real argument.

Gravy is the king of it and bermas totally destroyed him.

As usual, gravy resorts to the emotional blackmail of the victims.;

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:38, Blogger Pat said...

BG, the host makes no bones about being biased, which is why he asked two of the Loosers to debate Mark Roberts and him. He's also a frequent commenter hereabouts.

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Falco98 said...

Let's go thru the list of 9/11 Truth advocates who allow that there is a danger from terrorist who come from a Fundamentalists Islamic Jihadi viewpoint:

DRG
Ruppert
Webster Tarpley
Sander Hicks
Alex Jones
Steven Jones
James Fetzer
Judy Wood

the real challenge is for you to name one who doesn't acknowledge the threat.

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:59, Blogger James B. said...

Huh? Alex Jones claims that every terror attack in the history of the world is fake.

 
At 17 December, 2006 11:59, Blogger Alex said...

Gee, it sure is fun scrolling through the comments section...

BG, BG, BG, BG, Jay

BG, BG, Jay

BG, BG, BG, BG, BG, BG, Jay

Someone sure loves to hear himself talk....

Quantity over quality, right bill?

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:02, Blogger telescopemerc said...

telescopeburke a strawman is when you attribute a weak argument to your opponent and then refute it. Thereby giving the impression you have refuted their real argument.

So where was this done?

Gravy is the king of it and bermas totally destroyed him.

You are wrong on both accounts, and that's why you cannot prove it.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:03, Blogger shawn said...

Let's go thru the list of 9/11 Truth advocates who allow that there is a danger from terrorist who come from a Fundamentalists Islamic Jihadi viewpoint:

This is why he is correct in saying the Truthers deny it, you idiots deny the LARGEST TERROR ATTACK IN HUMAN HISTORY.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:05, Blogger shawn said...

Hardfire host shows huge bias.

Hey, moron, having a bias towards logic and evidence isn't a bad thing.

The show's host doesn't even hide his bias. He's recommending the Pop Mechanics book.


IRONY ALERT. IRONY ALERT.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:14, Blogger MarkyX said...

bg

Jack Blood. He believes no hostiles exist.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:21, Blogger telescopemerc said...

nesync, although hardly a real name, was certainly vocal about all of radical Islam being a fiction started by Mossad.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

Huh? Alex Jones claims that every terror attack in the history of the world is fake.


James,

I think you are speaking rhetorically here. Just in case you are not.

Alex Jones has not said the following were fake:

Kohbar Towers
Cole Bombing
Lockerie (although I think there is evidence that they framed the wrong perp.)

Pearl Harbor was provoked and "allowed to happen", but not false flag.

As you know, I'm not fan of Alex, and he certainly has not been selected by any 9/11 as a leader. He has a broadcasting platform, which many GSS people have used without necessarily endorsing everything Alex has put out.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MarkyX said...

bg

Jack Blood. He believes no hostiles exist.


I don't support Jack Blood for various reasons.

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jack Blood and Psychosexual Internet Stalking: M3U,
RAM,
MP3

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is much better than than the vid of John Connor.

Bill Handel, 911 Govt. Story Supporter, shows his Holiday Spirit

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:24, Blogger shawn said...

Couldn't you put "911 Govt. Story Supporter" to pretty much everyone on Earth's name (Truthers are few and far between)?

Although you sure haven't lost your love of logical fallacies, bg. As if him going beserk had anything to do with the 9/11 "official story".

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:25, Blogger Democrat said...

Nice to see dylan is saying and i quote"Loose change really is not a fair representation of the 9/11 truth movement"

He even admits it has numerous errors in it.


And so it has. No sane person will deny that. It's more about effect than 100% credible and the former it achieved perfectly.

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn said...

I'm curious what you think of Handel in general, and what you think of this behavior on his part.

And, have you listened to his radio show and followed how much he supports Israel and discounts any discussion of Israeli actions as being a source of global unrest.

I'm not sure if he's up to Tammy Bruce standards, but I think he's trying.

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:33, Blogger shawn said...

It's more about effect than 100% credible and the former it achieved perfectly.

Ah, so you people aren't for the truth.

This is what I hate so much about the political left and right nowadays. As long as something has the correct message, damn the facts! Michael Moore is embraced even though the mistakes in his films are legion, as with Chomsky and his written work. Ann Coulter's books are peppered with misrepresentations and mistakes, but she's got the right idea, so it's all ok!

The truth is absent of all bias, all opinion. You shouldn't embrace someone's work just because it strokes your ego or tells you what you want to hear. Embrace those that get it right, and tell it to you straight - not those that would ignore the very basis of reality to get in some partisan shots.

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:43, Blogger shawn said...

And, have you listened to his radio show and followed how much he supports Israel and discounts any discussion of Israeli actions as being a source of global unrest.


More victim-blaming. The unrest is due to Arab hatred of Israel. Anyone with basic knowledge of the area knows that.

And what does it matter if he supports Israel? Christian fundamentalists do as well, and I loathe them.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:00, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, I forgot to say,

Boxcutters ha ha ha ha!

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

shawn said...

I want to say in the most civil way possible that I think you are overlooking a huge piece of the puzzle of what is driving US govt. behavior if you don't realize power of the Israeli Lobby, and the central destabilizing role of Israel.

Read Carter's new book. Ask yourself why Carter is being attacked in a manner clearly out of proportion any mistakes he may have made in his book.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:06, Blogger shawn said...

I want to say in the most civil way possible that I think you are overlooking a huge piece of the puzzle of what is driving US govt. behavior if you don't realize power of the Israeli Lobby, and the central destabilizing role of Israel.

And I'll say this in the most civil way possible - if you think the Israel lobby is all that powerful (and that the paper about it was correct) you are an antisemite. And no hiding behind that defense of "any critic of Israel is called an antisemite to silence them". It is an antisemitic myth, the modern day Protocols.

Read Carter's new book. Ask yourself why Carter is being attacked in a manner clearly out of proportion any mistakes he may have made in his book.

I've read it. It's disgusting. The attacks on him have been unbelievably civil compared to the awful mistakes he makes throughout the book. The title itself is factually in error. The Palestinians have no one to blame but themselves and the Arab bloc. To say otherwise is to ignore history.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:08, Blogger shawn said...

And the biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East right now is Syria.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn,

This is a mostly ad hominem attack. I admit it.

There are some 21 year olds who are mature and knowledgable beyond their years. You aren't one of them.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:31, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:32, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:33, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:33, Blogger shawn said...

There are some 21 year olds who are mature and knowledgable beyond their years. You aren't one of them.

As I am more knowledgable than you, where does that place you? (And I doubt you know many twenty-one year olds - most of them couldn't place Israel on the map let alone know about Carter's book or the ISrael lobby paper). Believe me bg, in a debate on Israel I would wipe the floor with you.

And excellent retort. Calling you an antisemite for believing in antisemitic myths isn't ad hominem. It's like saying you're a Democrat for believing in their platform or a Repulican for believing in theirs. You didn't refute a thing I said.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:47, Blogger shawn said...

What next, bg, it's the Jews fault for the Holocaust because everyone hated them and they should've left Europe? That's the exact same logic you employ with Israel.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shawn,

I'd ask you to consider the commentary here.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:53, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

Good Job Dylan

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:53, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:57, Blogger shawn said...

Carter does not say that Israel is an apartheid state. He says explicitly that it is not and that, when he uses the term apartheid, he is not referring to Israel. "I am," he says, "referring to Palestine and not to Israel….Arabs living in Israel are citizens of Israel and have full citizenship, voting and legal rights, and so forth."

And here's the problem with his argument. Apartheid only works with Israel. Palestine is not an existing state, ergo it cannot have an apartheid system - nor does it. Even when Israelis lived there, they were not an upper class ruling over, they were settlers in their own enclaves. What is so odd about the debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict is the pro-Palestine pundits ignore the fact that Israel has tried the land for peace deal numerous times. When they gave Gaza over, forcing their own people off the land, they got a suicide attack the VERY DAY AFTER THE EVACUATION.

Not only that, but the Arab states are the ones keeping the Palestinians in refugee camps. It is their fault (and the fault of the Palestinians) that there is any occupation to begin with. In the original UN deal, the Jews got 1/5 of Palestine. The Arabs weren't happy with that so they started a series of wars to eliminate Israel.

Stop blaming the victim.

Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel

 
At 17 December, 2006 14:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You didn't refute a thing I said."

Granted.

We disagree about things that are subject to reasonable disagreement. The article that I linked to does a better job than I could hope to of stating some fundamentals of the situation and tries to avoid (and recommend avoiding) the realm where the "anti-semite" charge gets tossed out.

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As much as I may agree with some of the Slate article by Kinsley, don't you think it's telling that Kinsley was not able to spend the mental energy to dissent fairly even the title of Carter's book?

It's not rocket science, as the article I linked to explains.

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:08, Blogger shawn said...

It's obvious that Jimmy Carter wanted to ruffle feathers with the title, he was utterly dishonest in doing so. He also said it was to open debate, but when folks try to debate them he makes ad hominem attacks against them.

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:18, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Good job Dylan? Are insane. Dylan may have spoken 4 sentences the entire 28 minutes. Sleepy you really are 12 years old arent you?

As for this debate, I got what was expected from Pdoherty. Oh ya, Bermas handed Mark his ass...oh yah! Whatever you say PD, we all know how much your comments are worth.

I will say this, the debates were well done, civil, and both groups had plenty of time to get some things out there. I was impressed with the unusual degree of civility exhibited by the LTW crew.

You can see, when you listen to Bermas and Avery lately, that they are moving their line of thought, and maybe the new LC, into a much more LIHOP area of the argument.

TAM

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:20, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

Hey PAT or JAMES

I dare you to copy and paste my blog proving 9/11 Was an Inside Job.

I dare you to put this on the home page of Screw Loose Change and Debunk How I proved its an Inside Job.

SHOW ME THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Huh? Alex Jones claims that every terror attack in the history of the world is fake."

When someone uses the word "every" in a debate it usually detracts from the credibility of their statement. But not EVERY time.. ;-)

Anyway, a whole lot of terror attacks in history are fake or allowed to happen. Check out this link about it..

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911_past_terrorism.html

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:22, Blogger shawn said...

Edward, almost all of those weren't faked or weren't allowed to happen.

Nice try.

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:23, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

No I am 23.

I think you are insane, You are not in reality. You think this was done by people with boxcutters?

AHAHAHA

Read My Blog....I proved its an inside Job

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:25, Blogger shawn said...

You think this was done by people with boxcutters?

Boxcutters and bomb belts.

Read My Blog....I proved its an inside Job

You can't prove something that didn't happen. Christ, how'd you make it to twenty-three?

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:26, Blogger shawn said...

Wow I just read your points, they're all wrong or red herrings. I know you don't know what a red herring is, so look it up (Operation Northwoods is an example, as is Alex Jones "predicting" 9/11).

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:39, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

Anybody can say there wrong. So #31 is wrong? #18 is a joke?

Prove them wrong.

C'mon
\

Show me the plane hitting the pentagon


I believe the planes were under remote control. The passengers were gassed. A missle hit the pentagon. 93 Was shot down. Bombs were in the buildings.

They did this to take our rights from us. To form world government. Im not typing every little thing again. Its in my blog.

You people are not in reality!

Did you know the usa attacked itself in 1964 and 1967?

HAHAHAHHAHAHA Prob not

 
At 17 December, 2006 16:27, Blogger Stevew said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&mode=related&search=

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

 
At 17 December, 2006 16:29, Blogger shawn said...

I believe the planes were under remote control. The passengers were gassed. A missle hit the pentagon. 93 Was shot down. Bombs were in the buildings.

Well those are all wrong.

It's funny how you and logic have no relationship. You need to see something to believe it? How do you know you were born? You didn't see it happen. Why do you need to see the plane hitting the Pentagon for it to have hit the Pentagon? The bodies are there. All the plane parts are there. All eyewitnesses saw the plane.

 
At 17 December, 2006 16:50, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


Anybody can say there wrong. So #31 is wrong? #18 is a joke?

Prove them wrong.

C'mon
\

Show me the plane hitting the pentagon


I believe the planes were under remote control. The passengers were gassed. A missle hit the pentagon. 93 Was shot down. Bombs were in the buildings.

They did this to take our rights from us. To form world government. Im not typing every little thing again. Its in my blog.

You people are not in reality!

Did you know the usa attacked itself in 1964 and 1967?

HAHAHAHHAHAHA Prob not


Amazing how someone 2 years younger than Shawn could be so much more naive, gullible, and irrational.

You do realize it is not up to us to prove your points are wrong, but up to you to prove they are true/correct.

If I told you there was life on Mars, is it up to you to prove to me there isnt, or up to me to prove to you that there is? If you are claiming 9/11 was an inside job, then you must prove it. And because you think it was, or feel it was, does not make it so.

TAM:)

 
At 17 December, 2006 16:51, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I meant 2 years older than shawn....sorry

 
At 17 December, 2006 17:01, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Sleepy:

Your point 31, is silly. Just because some "out there" academics claim 9/11 was an inside job, doesn't make it one. This point is worthless.

Your point 18, I see no proof for your claim. Show me a signed confession from the Janitor, where he names names, and then I will give it credence. Linking us to an Alex Jones speech DEFINITELY does not help your cause.


Show me the plane hitting the pentagon.


How many plane crashes have you witnessed? How many plane crashes have actually been filmed, compared to the number that were not? So do you believe only things that are recorded on video are real. So TWA 800, was that real, because noone saw the plane crash. How do you know the debris in the hanger wasnt faked?

Rediculous.


I believe the planes were under remote control.


Some people believe we are being taken over by a race of superintelligent lizards...do you. What you believe is useless without evidence.


The passengers were gassed. A missle hit the pentagon. 93 Was shot down. Bombs were in the buildings.


show me one piece of evidence, not opinion or "feelings" or speculation, show me one piece of solid EVIDENCE that proves any of your rediculous claims above.

TAM:(

 
At 17 December, 2006 17:19, Blogger Rowe_Korey said...

Dylan,

Am I still your're favorite flunky?

 
At 17 December, 2006 17:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

into a much more LIHOP area of the argument.

TAM


I have to respect that. With the Scholars for 9/11 Truth in disarray, it seems to be a reasonable strategy to regroup around what a large number of people will have little trouble supporting.

I don't think they are sacrificing the probable likely truth as they are doing it.

 
At 17 December, 2006 17:46, Blogger R.Lange said...

BG wrote: ". . .it seems to be a reasonable strategy to regroup around what a large number of people will have little trouble supporting."

Ahh, so it's more about what's easiest for people swallow rather than truth?

"I don't think they are sacrificing the probable likely truth as they are doing it."

How?

 
At 17 December, 2006 18:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

R.Lange said...,

If you think that I'm deranged and other are deranged for questioning 9/11, that may explain why are being such an unpleasant fellow.

It's your choice, but I don't have much interest in trying to have a conversation with you.

 
At 17 December, 2006 18:31, Blogger shawn said...

If you think that I'm deranged and other are deranged for questioning 9/11, that may explain why are being such an unpleasant fellow.

Most of you aren't deranged, you just don't know how logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and evidence work.

 
At 17 December, 2006 18:32, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Sleepy2k21:

I have addressed your blog list of inside job "proof" on my blog:

http://911yj.blogspot.com/

TAM

 
At 17 December, 2006 19:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watching Part 2 of Video from Loose Change Blog.

Mark comes across impressively: knowledge cited and demeanor.

The whole molten metal debate is not an easy way to call one way or the other.

 
At 17 December, 2006 19:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My own opinion,

NIST collapse mechanism is baloney.

I'm amazed Mark and others can support this.

 
At 17 December, 2006 19:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 December, 2006 19:59, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This thread proves that BG is on more drugs the humanly possible.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:03, Blogger Alex said...

The passengers were gassed.

SHOW ME THE GAS!

A missle hit the pentagon.

SHOW ME THE MISSILE!

93 Was shot down.

SHOW ME FLIGHT 93 BEING SHOT DOWN!

Bombs were in the buildings.

SHOW ME THE BOMBS!

You get the idea...

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:04, Blogger Alex said...

My own opinion,

Opinions are like BG's. Or a synonym anyway.

Nobody cares about your opinion. The only thing we care about is what you can prove.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:14, Blogger Triterope said...

My own opinion, NIST collapse mechanism is baloney.

It's not an opinion question.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:23, Blogger Bubbers said...

sleepy2k21 said...
"No I am 23.

I think you are insane, You are not in reality. You think this was done by people with boxcutters?

AHAHAHA

Read My Blog....I proved its an inside Job"
=======================================================================

This reminds me of 28th Kingdom over at JREF who just KNEW that if we gave him a few minutes he could absolutely PROVE that it was an inside job. Why is it that some of them think they can just prove this to anyone. None of them have proved anything. In fact if you're so sure you can prove it sleepy, I'm pretty sure that the offer still stands over at JREF to take your evidence to the DA. So get it together and send it in and prove to the world that you're right. Or something like that.

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:36, Blogger Bubbers said...

And have you ever read your own blog guy? I mean how does a regurgitation of Loose Change coupled with Alex Jones saying there might be terrorist attack in a major city prove anything. I didn't hear AJ ever say that on Spetember 11th, we are going to be attacked by 4 planes with hijackers on them who will use boxcutters to take over the planes. He didn't predict anything. What exactly does this blog of yours prove, except that you are very gullible and extremely naive? Seriously that's your proof? Yikes.

 
At 17 December, 2006 21:19, Blogger pomeroo said...

To clear up some confusion, I--not Gary Popkin, the producer of 'Hardfire'--am the host of the show. After my debate with Les Jamieson, pretending to be neutral would look a bit silly, no?

Bg, you reject the NIST report without knowing what it says. Mark has read it.

 
At 17 December, 2006 21:23, Blogger pomeroo said...

When do the fantasists give up on the boxcutter canard? We all understand that the hijackers used knives, except on Flight 77, where, according to calls made from the planes, two of them had boxcutters.

 
At 17 December, 2006 22:25, Blogger Alex said...

Doesn't matter anyway. I can do as much damage to you with a box-cutter as I can with a knife. Nobody's going to charge a man armed with a box-cutter unless they have a reason to believe that their life is in immediate danger, and even then many people couldn't do it. If any twoofer wants to test this theory, I've got my own box-cutters; as long as you're willing to sign a waiver, I'll be happy to help you out.

 
At 17 December, 2006 23:48, Blogger Nyke said...

And have you ever read your own blog guy? I mean how does a regurgitation of Loose Change coupled with Alex Jones saying there might be terrorist attack in a major city prove anything. I didn't hear AJ ever say that on Spetember 11th, we are going to be attacked by 4 planes with hijackers on them who will use boxcutters to take over the planes. He didn't predict anything. What exactly does this blog of yours prove, except that you are very gullible and extremely naive? Seriously that's your proof? Yikes.

The only thing he said was there was something fake was going to happen somewhere at sometime. This does not entail that he predicted 9/11, even if it was fake, as he did not have any details we can check up on. Honestly, I could point out any relationship, and say that they'll argue over something somewhere at sometime, and odds are, this will happen. This does not mean I'm predicting it.

 
At 18 December, 2006 00:50, Blogger Bubbers said...

Exactly. I'm sick of hearing people say that he predicted 9/11. The guy is a fraud with a very gullible and very small fan base. He didn't predict a damn thing. Somehow all of the truthers think that his bullshit "prediction" is further prrof of an inside job.

 
At 18 December, 2006 04:49, Blogger Murdervillage said...

bg said...

Mark,

You are incorrect in saying that many 9/11 truthers deny militant Islamic Fundamentalism that would do harm to Americans and Westerners.


No, you are incorrect. Many of them have said exactly that to my face at Ground Zero.

Do you live near New York? Then join me there on Saturday and hear how the U.S. government has engineered the imagined radical Islamist threat, the terrorists are victims (those who aren't still alive and well, that is), the FDNY is "in on it," and "all laws of physics" were broken on 9/11.

Jason Bermas himmself has said that all terrorism in the U.S. is sponsored by the U.S. government. If you're going to try to correct me on the facts, know what the hell you're talking about.

Clear enough, bg?

 
At 18 December, 2006 04:58, Blogger Murdervillage said...

Alex Jones' "prediction" was a claim that if something like the '93 WTC bombing happened again, it would be the U.S. government's fault.

HELLO? He says that about EVERYTHING. Check Perry Logan's site for a list of Jones' hilarious not-so-prescient predictions. Dionne Warwick should be his spokeswoman.

 
At 18 December, 2006 05:31, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Shawn You sound reasonable and smart most of the time, but dropping the anti-semite to those who critize the STATE of ISRAEL are not anti-semetic at all. You really show your lack of knowlege about the term itself, especially on this issue.


Here is an insider's points about the powerful Israeli lobby. Far more qualified to speak on it than you or me for that matter.

Letter from James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota to Jeff Blankfort on the Israel Lobby

December 4, 2006

The following letter was sent to me today by James Abourezk, former US Senator from South Dakota, and he readily complied when I asked that I be allowed to forward it to my list because what he had to say is of the utmost importance, given last month's election and all the new faces in Congress, and the immediate previous posting to you and James Petras's article earlier in the day..


Dear Jeff:

I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.

I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.

I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear--fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done.

I can also tell you that very few members of Congress--at least when I served there--have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel.

I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.

Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, whom, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.

I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.

With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.

I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.

I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the Western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations. So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.

So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."

Jim Abourezk

 
At 18 December, 2006 05:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pomeroo-When do the fantasists give up on the boxcutter canard? We all understand that the hijackers used knives, except on Flight 77, where, according to calls made from the planes, two of them had boxcutters.

Now which is is Pom, knives, box cutters, gun, bombs? I've read all of the above from the MSM. Which is the correct truthful version?

 
At 18 December, 2006 05:47, Blogger Alex said...

Yeah, it was the Joos. Don't worry your empty little head Mr. Ahmadejinad Jr., we've heard it all before. You really don't need to rehash the same tired old anti-semitic drivel.

 
At 18 December, 2006 06:39, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
Do you think he will explain how a missle took out 5 light poles and hit the generator before it hit the Pent? Do you think he will provide us with a vid of the Lockerby crash as well?

 
At 18 December, 2006 07:08, Blogger Alex said...

I think it's more likely he'll try to show that the USS Liberty took out the light poles.

 
At 18 December, 2006 07:13, Blogger Stevew said...

That is consistent with most of the toofer's theories :)

 
At 18 December, 2006 07:16, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry, Swingie, the game is just about over. It's getting harder and harder to con people. The hijackers used knives, except for two on Flight 77. Stop pretending that the confused reports on the day of the attacks compete with the knowledge that has been gained since. Rational people learn as more information becomes available. Only twoofers are impervious to evidence.

 
At 18 December, 2006 12:08, Blogger Democrat said...

What is getting harder is surviving the stench of bad reports and defending stories that cannot be true.

My own opinion,

NIST collapse mechanism is baloney.

I'm amazed Mark and others can support this.


The last sentence is exactly the point of measurement. People that cannot see what is wrong with the NIST report may probably buy anything from an organisation bearing a government or 'expert' statement.

Probably the same guys that love the Baker report as well.

 
At 18 December, 2006 12:24, Blogger Alex said...

"People that cannot see what is wrong with the NIST report" are generaly ones who actualy bothered to read it, whereas those who see conspiracies around every corner have gotten all their info about the NIST report from sites like http://rense.com/general74/nist.htm

 
At 18 December, 2006 13:22, Blogger Democrat said...

Personally, that rense.com piece makes a lot more sense than the NIST crap.

Yes, crap, and at a high cost: freedom.

Thank you, NIST, for f** that up..

 
At 18 December, 2006 14:33, Blogger Dog Town said...

Great job, Gravy, and Ron!
"Twoofers Stunned" the Movie!
Brilllliant...

 
At 18 December, 2006 15:02, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
I love how the toofer's when they don't understand something they always say it is f'ed up then reference some conspiricy crap written by some whak. I wonder if they ever thought to compare the qualifications of the NIST people to their own

 
At 18 December, 2006 15:31, Blogger shawn said...

You sound reasonable and smart most of the time, but dropping the anti-semite to those who critize the STATE of ISRAEL are not anti-semetic at all.

Didn't I specifically say that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic? If I didn't say it in this thread, I said it elsewhere. If you go to some of the protests I've attended, you are surrounded by antisemites. Not people who disagree with a specific action of Israel, but people who side with those who want to wipe it off the face of the Earth. We had people in Boston wearing Hizbollah shirts and praising them. Could you imagine people walking around with swastikas on their chests and not getting called antisemites and getting their asses stomped? Antisemitism is engrained in the far-left and far-right, and one of the greatest successes of these folks (mostly the Left) is to make the claim that "oh we're just criticizing Israel, stop trying to silence us".

Not all criticism of America is anti-American, but there are those whose criticisms are anti-American.

 
At 20 December, 2006 17:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very good and civil debate. Both sides argue convincingly and in a rational manner. Personally I tend to favour Mark in the physical evidence, whereas Dylan and the producer are more in tune with the events leading up to and following 911.

If the truth movement is concerned with getting to the bottom of 911, it should stop being so hung up on trying to convince people of the physical evidence and conduct more research into the intelligence connections between the hijackers and the possibility of them being assets or dupes. As with the Kennedy assassination, to get the true perpetrators you must move away from Dealey Plaza (in this case the Trade Center).

911 research has been stagnant in recent years and has concentrated too much on New York. The only way forward is to research the hijackers, their intelligence backgrounds and their handlers. I think the best example of such work is done by Nafeez Ahmed in 'War on truth'. Research such as this needs to be carried on from if any real ground is to be made.

Like the Kennedy assassination, you can argue over who shot from where, but all you really need to know is that there were two bullets. You have that, then you can move away from the scene of the crime.

All the best and I really enjoyed the debate.

John

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home