The Incredible Shrinking Loose Change Conspiracy
I've always held that those who thought that Dylan Avery was really backing away from MIHOP in Loose Change Final Cut had to be crazy, but it certainly sounds like it. In the BBC special the other day, Dylan started out by saying that:
"My bottom-line thesis is that the our government was either a) criminally negligent in its response and its awareness of the 9-11 attacks, or b) our government was directly involved in the preparation and planning of the attacks."
Well, a) isn't even LIHOP!
Labels: Dylan Avery, Loose Change Final Cut
posted by Pat @ 8:15 AM
37 comments
37 Comments:
MIHOP, LIHOP, I don't think it matters to Avery. This is all about him. This became very evident yesterday when Guy Smith, the producer of the BBC special was on Alex Jones' show. Avery was allowed to ask a question to Smith, and the first thing he asks is why he got the fact that he was not a college drop-out. The irony of the question is the fact the makers of the BBC show were doing him a favor--they should have said is was a two-time film school reject. Avery, who apparently is not intelligent enough to know that it is better to accepted to a college, then drop-out, than it is to be simply rejected!
Could you put "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" in the "unusual terms / abbreviations" section of the top post? Thanks!
When this blog started, and it's purpose was to focus was on Loose Change, I didn't see this as a good development at all for creating a dialog on questions about 9/11.
As a close watcher and follower of the 9/11 Truth movement, I was uncomfortable from the beginning with Loose Change as a vehicle to wake people up.
Perhaps because I'm older, I didn't like the music that added to the soundtrack for one thing. I thought the production was too flashy in general and played fast and loose with details in many places. I have always been uncomfortable with treating such a solemn subject with a product that goes "showbiz" on a limited budget.
Of course, the fact that the video has become immensely popular on the web is evidence that, whether accurate and appropriate or not, sensationalism attracts and sells to some degree.
Although not nearly as misleading as M. Moore's Fahrenheith 9/11, my preference would not have been that Loose Change were never released, providing as it does such as easy target for blogs like this, and other commentators.
I will continue to ask anyone who cares about the truth to focus on the following 2 sub-groups:
1) Researchers who have extensive web sites or books published to back up their claims
2) Those who are pursuing the continuing challenge to our government representatives and agencies requesting follow up on the gaps left by the lack of due diligence to of the 9/11 Commission. This group includes Family Members, Rescue, etc., and those who have made videos such as "Press for the Truth".
My wish would be that many of you here would keep an open mind in both of the areas above. Facing reality, I respect that many of you are completely convinced that all alternative theories are outrageous. To those I will ask that you still pursue, investigate, and become active if you are inclined, toward #2 above.
Finally, in reviewing this blog since its inception, I have to say that, even with the disrespect attitude, SLC Blog has provided a valuable service in pointing out weaknesses in Loose Change and 9/11 Truth advocates assertions.
Loose Change Final Cut will be the beginning of the end for the MIHOP movement. It will certainly get some popularity, similar to Michael Moore, but that will quickly fade.
A bunch of nuthin about nuthin, to promote this young man's career in hollywood. EOS.
TAM
Loose Change Final Cut will be the beginning of the end for the MIHOP
I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed about how MIHOP the new LC is, and how much energy will continue behind MIHOP assertions.
The point of BBC's 'drop out' comment was to attack the character of one of the creator's of LC. Of course that questions the character of the person right off the bat.
Generally a biased program will refuse to do that. Mark "Gravy" Roberts does the same thing by pointing out Professor Jone's religious beliefs and publications about Mormonism in his paper which of course have nothing to do with 9/11. This of course to cause the reader to disregard the persons expertise in the field of Physics.
How did the producer of the BBC special respond to the question?
I have yet to see any OS'er use the term Mark Roberts, Tour Guide, when discussing his work. Albeit James has done that once to point out the irrefutable evidence that Mark Roberts is an not an expert at anything.
So unsprisingly, BBC would do the same thing with a hit piece on the Truth Movement.
It is the most oldest most overused tactic to refute anyone in the truth movement and hopefully by now most sentient beings recognize it as such.
OK Swing, is it proper for Avery to state that "Popular Mechanics" should stick to tractors? You can't have it both ways.
"My bottom-line thesis is that the our government was either a) criminally negligent in its response and its awareness of the 9-11 attacks, or b) our government was directly involved in the preparation and planning of the attacks."
Err... so Final Cut is merely going to be a documentary about the already-existing "debate" that's been going on between debunkers and "truthers" for the past 5 years?
chf,
Scientists and Engineers would be really helpful, mainly to point out the baloney that NIST has been putting out.
I don't think it can be either. It has to be one or nothing. If Avery says LIHOP, he has to abandon all the MIHOP aspects.
Its ludicrous.
I thought of one "CLITH"
Complacency Led It To Happen
BG said...
I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed about how MIHOP the new LC is, and how much energy will continue behind MIHOP assertions.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to be disappointed if it's anything less than a categorical apology.
Thanks folks--these comments are an excellent addition to the archive.
When I hosted the debate between Mark and The Boys, I got the distinct impression that Jason was a True Believer, but Dylan was having second thoughts about the wisdom of promoting such manifest nonsense as his ticket to fame and fortune.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Default - the religious beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("the mormons") are not relevant to this discussion. To use them against Jones is to use them against Jones's critics who are also LDS, including myself, Robert Cronk over at LDSpatriot (linked to along the sidebar here at SLC), and Dr. A. Woodruff Miller (chair of the BYU Engineering faculty).
Jones's antics have given us more than enough rope to hang him with without needing to drag our religion into it.
Sieg_Hieler - So long as you deny the Holocaust, the mormon church is better off without you standing up for it. A person motivated as you are by religious hatred can only be trusted to turn against us when you find it convenient to do so.
Well, Jenny, it may be impossible for conspiracy liars to admit that they're wrong, but rationalists find it rather easy. Incidentally, you never did get around to telling us exactly what stopped you from registering at JREF. That's all right. You're under no obligation to post there.
The "real" Nico vs. the "fake" Nico? Say what? Why would somebody take the trouble to impersonate a nobody? I'm not being unkind--merely candid.
One small correction: I was banned from 911blogger because I was humiliating Gold, who has a delightful habit of leading with his chin.
And, finally, the important point: I never start out nasty. I take my cues from the responses I receive. I won't initiate the name-calling, but I see no reason to tolerate abuse.
There may be some engineers that I'll like to hear more from:
British engineers strongly disputed official American claims that the towers became more vulnerable to collapse after the hijacked aircraft scraped vital fire protection from their steel frames.
This comment has been removed by the author.
cfh,
Your insistence on calling me (or anyone) a moron does not make your words any more credible. Just the opposite, in fact.
The "blown away" or dislodged fireproofing argument is an area that I've been interested in.
I'd like to see documentation the NIST models, and the models that the Brits were using that would justify the statement that collapse can be explained without much reliance on dislodged fireproofing.
Speaking of Engineers, are you familiar with Jeff King's opinions on controlled demolition of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your insistence on calling me (or anyone) a moron does not make your words any more credible. Just the opposite, in fact.
No problem, there are plenty of words we could use instead which would be just as accurate. Idiot, dumbass, retard, shit-for-brains, asshole and gluebag are a good start. I'm sure there's plenty more. Which ones would you prefer?
As I review various documents, especially early discussions about the towers and their collapse, I would ask you to consider:
1) Isn't the concern of whether fireproofing failure was a significant factor in the collapse of extreme import. NIST claims it was a major factor, and obviously others (with equal credentials) disagree. In fact, if I understand the NIST report correctly, the heating and related bowing in of the floor assemblies is cited as the mechanism of the initiation of the collapse sequence. How does the steel heat so fast if the fireproofing isn't removed to the large degree that NIST hypothicates?
Note this document: WTC Structural Analysis
Part of the document advances a theory of the weakening of the floor (which was not a robust floor to begin with, according to this discussion) due to high temperatures as being THE most important reason for the collapses, which seems to foreshadow the NIST line of argument in the final report.
However, this same document claims WTC 7 collapsed in "slow motion".
Ha!
As another aside, when you asked if engineers might be people I would include, I said yes, engineers.
Now, you are saying electrical engineers don't count.
So, let me get this straight, are we now down to structural and civil engineers, or are civil engineers out as well.
And, how many of the NIST team that worked on the WTC collapse project were structural engineers? And based on your logic, what was the purpose of the personnel on the team who weren't structural engineers?
I want the truth.
I wasn't implying in any way that my previous entry does directly support any alternative theory such as CD.
You didn't answer my question,
How many structural engineers on the NIST study team?
Good points CHF I caught those as well. I wonder when these fools will give hard evidence of CD?
Everything is at the NIST site, all he has to do is look
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm
Chf has exposed, redundantly, Bg as a fraud. The British engineers contend that the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires were in themselves sufficient to bring down the Twin Towers. They are challenging recommendations made by NIST. They are most decidedly NOT arguing in support of the lunatic myths promoted by the conspiracy liars.
Bg dishonestly pretends to be interested in the fireproofing issue. Why, one wonders, hasn't his "interest" led him to actually read any of the NIST publications?
Jenny, I will try to work up some curiosity about the "fake" Nico when you explain to me why I should care. Soon after Mark demolished The Boys on Hardfire, someone sent me an e-mail informing me that I was being dissed by the 911 Researchers (or some such Orwellian nonsense). I found the site and engaged in a silly argument with three or four idiots who spouted sheer lunacy that managed to go beyond the usual tinfoil-hat drivel. I packed it in when numerology was invoked and the Illuminati put in an appearance.
The loon I originally responded to posted as "ewing2001." Someone--I forget if I read it here, or on Smasher's blog, or on the JREF--said that ewing2001 was Nico Haupt. I didn't--and don't--have the slightest idea if this is true or not. And, again, I can't imagine why I should care. I can conclude, however, that whoever it was that engaged me here in the past week seemed a whole lot saner than the crackpot I attempted to debate around the Holidays.
Stevew said...
Everything is at the NIST site, all he has to do is look
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links
From a quick review, it appears that fewer than 10% of the team documented are structural engineers.
I acknowledge that fire safety experts are reasonable team members. My point is still valid. Not even the most of the NIST team meets the requirement for who should qualify to have an opinion of the Towers.
I wasn't trying to be lazy. Since many of you here have claimed to be so familiar with NIST, I thought you would have access to details that it takes a lot of surfing to document.
This comment has been removed by the author.
pomeroo said...
I have read the narrative portion of the 2005 NIST report, as well as others. Are you saying that I need to read all the supporting charts, and appendicies to bring up the fact that there is disagreement on the role of fireproofing or lack thereof as a principal cause of collapse beging a concern about the NIST work and conclusion?
No, bg, I am saying that you are a fraud for pretending that an honest disagreement between qualified researchers over NIST's recommendations constitutes an endorsement of your absurd fantasies.
I thought you had me on ignore BG
The fact that you do not understand the reports that have already been published does not make them wrong
Where is a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?
When are you clowns going to give reports by qualified people to back up your claims?
Are you saying that I need to read all the supporting charts, and appendicies to bring up the fact that there is disagreement on the role of fireproofing or lack thereof as a principal cause of collapse beging a concern about the NIST work and conclusion?
*sigh*
The ONLY disagreement, Bill, is whether or not the buildings would have fallen even with the fireproofing intact. NOBODY is saying that the buildings should not have fallen at all. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
This is equivalent to saying "well, scientists disagree on what exactly is causing global warming, therefore global warming isn't happening at all". It's a non-sequitur. Not only is it utterly illogical, but it actually works to DISPROVE your own argument! You are showing that the experts all disagree with you, and then trying to twist that to look like evidence that you're right. It makes absolutely zero sense.
wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow gold@@@@
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
rolex replica
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
replica rolex
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
rolex
wow gold
wow gold
Warcraft Gold
Warcraft Gold
中高年 転職
アルバイト 求人情報
ブライダル
転職
競馬
FX
ダイエット
お見合い
競馬 予想
新築マンション
新築マンション
コンタクトレンズ
婚約指輪
合宿免許
人材派遣
東京都 墓地
派遣会社
人材派遣
パチンコ 攻略
おなら
货架
OCR
OCR
手机词典
高速扫描
机票
灭蟑螂
蜗轮减速机
减速机
齿轮减速机
丝杆升降机
租房
租房
北京租房
北京租房
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
上海机票
上海机票
上海打折机票
上海打折机票
上海特价机票
上海特价机票
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
fghgjghsreewrte
Post a Comment
<< Home