Big Liberal Blogger Pans Loose Change
Here's an exceptionally clearheaded review by the Liberal Avenger (see clarification at bottom of post), probably the biggest left of center blog to review Loose Change (other than diaries at Kos and one particularly buffoonish post at the celeb blog, the Huffington Post).
But Loose Change doesn’t just feature irrelevant facts and imply that they indicate a conspiracy. The video also features numerous examples of assertions based on dubious sources. Eyewitness testimony, notoriously unreliable, is used again and again. When witnesses contradict one another, which happens often, the producers arbitrarily choose the account that fits their theory. At one point, the narrator asserts that “it all comes down to whom you choose to believe.”
No. What it comes down to is who’s account is backed by physical and circumstantial evidence. If I choose to believe the witness who is filmed saying that a helicopter crashed into the Pentagon, then I’m an idiot. No helicopter parts were found, and a helicopter crash could not have produced the damage at the Pentagon. I’m also an idiot if I believe the producers of the film when they imply that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, despite the lack of cruise missile parts, and the abundance of wreckage from a Boeing 757.
I especially like the title for his post: Loose Change: Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing
The reference, is of course to Shakespeare, who wrote in Macbeth:
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
A tale told by an idiot indeed.
Update: To answer some of the comments, no, I don't agree with a lot that you will find on the Liberal Avenger's website. My point is that even liberals, who might be attracted to the 9-11 "Truth" movement by the suggestion that Bush was behind it all, find Loose Change to be complete fantasy.
Clarification: The Liberal Avenger stopped by in the comments and noted that his blog is a group blog and that the post cited here was written by Gordo. However, he does essentially agree with Gordo on the post.
posted by Pat @ 7:56 AM
69 comments
69 Comments:
I respect Jim and Pat's efforts to bring every bit of firepower to torpedoing Loose Change. I suppose it's reasonable and rational to pick up pieces to support your cause, even when in most subject areas you wouldn't touch the commentary of a particular blog such as this with a 10 foot pole.
There's nothing inherent wrong or illogical in this.
However, when the facts points a direction 180 degrees of what you are saying, it does add insult to injury.
Check this out: NIST's Evasion
Here's a recent post from the blog that you so happily are referencing and quoting from to support your Loose Change Smear:
NIGGAZ IS KRAZY!
May 21st at 3:22 pm by LA
Malkin(s)watch :: Another episode of “Negroes sure iz CRAZY!” :: May :: 2006
Malkin(s)Watch.
Link
Does context mean anything to you bg? Do you even know why the blog posted that? It would seem not.
It's pretty ironic you bring up something like this to wrongly attempt to disparage and cast aspersions on a blog in order to discredit it when so many of the links you post as 'proof of the truth' basically contain the equivalent of:
THE JEWZ IS OUT TO GETCHA!
And those sites you link are actually serious.
undense,
I read the post. I knew and know the context. I tend to agree with the criticism of Malkin.
That's not the point. Do Jim and Pat, and a huge number of others who think Loose Change is bunk agree with the criticism of Malkin?
I can't speak for anyone else, but Malkin is a public figure and people have a right not to like her and to criticize her.
In fact, she gets e-mail all the time from thoughtful, insightful progessives calling her things like "Slanty-eyed whore" and the like.
Now, if you knew the context, what was the original intent of your post? It didn't appear to have any relationship to Malkin. It appeared to be a poor attempt at discrediting the source.
I get the distinct impression you are backpedaling furiously with your previous comment.
Here's another "dubious" observation:
Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out"
US Congressman Ron Paul of Texas appeared on The Power Hour radio program on Wednesday, May 17th. Host Joyce Riley asked Rep. Paul about the new 9/11 footage released by the Pentagon. Congressman's Paul's comments were intriguing.
Here's the MP3 audio, and here's the transcript: "POWER HOUR HOST JOYCE RILEY: This Pentagon footage came out yesterday, and if you don't mind -- you know we have a lot of people in the audience who are saying, "Wait a minute. There is no plane there."
There was not a slamdunk story to end the concern of a lot of people. Your respone to the footage that was released yesterday, sir?
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX): Well, I heard that it was released. I did not look at it. I don't feel qualified to make a profound statement on this but I've listened to both sides. It's certainly amazing how many times we saw pictures of planes flying into buildings in New York; at the same time we'ver never seen, you know, a direct hit [on the Pentagon]. And I don't know whether this film really shows it or not. But I'm still looking at that. But I don't have the final answer.
RILEY: Well, I'll tell you that we are contacting American Airlines to get them on the show today and asking them to commit that it was their "Flight 77." We're waiting a response back from them, because a lot of people are saying, "Wait a minute -- there's something really wrong here." And if so then we're going to be probably hoping that we can get some support on trying to get more real serious investigation.
undense:
With respect to Malkin. There's a difference between what one has a "right" to do, and what most of us find crosses the line toward distasteful.
Now, I don't claim to be Miss Manners, but I think it's fair to let people have a look at Liberalavenger's work and make their own appraisal.
And let's say American Airlines confirms it was Flight 77 that was lost that day.
You people will say they were either bought off or were in on it.
There is no pleasing you. What you are doing is attempting to discredit this administration, our form of government, our country... all under the guise of "searching for the truth".
And it's sickening.
Of course, pay no mind to the pictures of American Airlines debris at the Pentagon.
Planted, faked, cruise missle.... Whatever the rhetoric is today.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Your link was very dishonest When it stated:
"Unfortunately, the destruction of evidence at Ground Zero was so complete that NIST can now only say that the steel components recovered demonstrate that there was "limited exposure if any
above 250 ºC." [9]
If you read the report you'll see they are in reference to the the 2 core columns samples. Other areas were at 600C and some members were found between 550 and 850C.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
J Fetzer also believes the moon landing was a hoax.
bg,
So which is it? Are you trying to discredit Liberal Avenger (which really doesn't make sense in regard to the link you provided and keeping the context in mind) or trying to see if the conservatives on this blog are upset that they are dissing Malkin? You seemingly can't make up your mind about that.
ScottSl,
I respect that your comment may be right.
Seems nit picky to me, especially when the larger context seems to paint of picture of evidence illegally destoryed from the crime scene of a mass murder. This aspect alone warrants a real criminal investigation.
Nit picky? LOL!
I don't consider these type of gross errors to be Nit picky. That's a GIANT error. Stating nothing was above 250C is very misleading and down right dishonest. If the issue is "why was the material not preserved better", than stick to that.
You might want to start asking yourself why your sources (Jones Griffin etc) are so full of errors.
Seems nit picky to me, especially when the larger context seems to paint of picture of evidence illegally destoryed from the crime scene of a mass murder. This aspect alone warrants a real criminal investigation.
FEMA, NIST, and others collected evidence from ground zero. Did you really expect them to leave everything laying there as is for months and not initially search for possible survivors?
undense,
I have already stated my point. Let me explain it a different way.
Let say you were arrested as a suspect of a murder. I'm not picking on you, it could be anyone. Now the local TV news picks up on the story, or even better Nancy Grace at CNN picks up on the story. If you have ever seen the Nancy Grace shows, say about the alleged Duke rape, you know exactly what I'm taking about. It crazy back and forth, although to be fair she usually has credentialed
guests.
In the case of the local news sometimes they have "man on the street" interviews. Let's say they are asking the man on the street whether he thinks you are guilty. In most cases they ask question about things like whether they feel like Social Security is in trouble, etc. They waste our time talking, on the whole, to people who have no expertise or background, and are highly unlikely to have researched the subject or have much capacity to understand it, or have any history of preparing a good presentation.
Here's the net-net: Liberal Avenger is the "man on the street" interview posted here because it served a purpose to meet the editorial content, which is often just what the dispicable TV "news" shows do. When one looks further, Liberal Avenger seems to have no reason to be seen as more credible than any of probably million other blogggers. Not only that, many people, I speculate, based on his other subject matter on his blog, would tend to find him less credible.
ScottSl,
I think that the inaccuracy/ommission (error) which you pointed out was by Jim Fetzer. Jones, Griffin, would need to be examined each as individual cases, wouldn't you agree?
And I can't believe you aren't even replying to the criminal destruction of evidence issue. I guess you realise there is no reply that excuse the egregious behavior.
Here's another "dubious" observation:
I'm guessing they were under alert. Either way, demolition experts and structual engineers, guy who know buildings (whereis Fires know fire) say otherwise. Also, numerous fire fighters who also take fire engineering stated that there was no bombs.
Here are two fire fighters, one a fire engineer and one a fire chief, saying different.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+bullshit
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm guessing they were under alert. Either way, demolition experts and structual engineers, guy who know buildings (whereis Fires know fire) say otherwise. Also, numerous fire fighters who also take fire engineering stated that there was no bombs.
Here are two fire fighters, one a fire engineer and one a fire chief, saying different.
Given the vast amount of witnesses, video and audio recordings of that day, I'd say all those 'experts' are full of shit. Look at that video again; they were there, at the scene why would they warn about bombs unless they actually found one? Why did they say it was GOING to go off?
bg,
First of all, you're attempting to redirect to a brand new tack.
Second, if one applies your own logic to youself, you have less credibility than Liberal Avenger, so why should anyone trust what you say?
At least Liberal Avenger can address specific points in their own words, which is something you have utterly failed to do in here. So before you drag out words like "man on the street" or "expertise" you may want to consider that.
undense,
noted.
d say all those 'experts' are full of shit.
Wow, so you're going to take the words of a nameless firefighter over a FIRE CHIEF and another fire fighter who HAPPENS TO BE AN EDITOR of one of the biggest fire magazines in the country?
Woo woo...you have been denied access to the logic train.
As for specific points, I would suggest to start researching the points yourself then I'll get back to you. Because I'm certainly not going to sway you.
Best Scott
I respect your thoughts, here Scott. With all due respect to you and everyone else, what I and millions others need to do is not more research. We need to ask you, who by your opposition to exposing the truth, are part of the crimminal cover up, to get on the right side of this issue. We need to ask that those with authority to address the criminal behavior take up the investigation.
I wanted to edit my last point.
bg I completely agree that the steel could of been handled better.
As for specific points, I would suggest to start researching the points yourself then I'll get back to you. Because I'm certainly not going to sway you.
I am fully aware the point I made was from Jim Fetzer.
As to your point about research. You REALLY NEED to do you own research. Thats the best way you'll find how reliable the information is. A good starting point is research Jones research Griffin. Who is making the errors?
Also see my post a few topics down on Jones.
Best Again Scott
from 911blogger.com
Preview of new 911 Eyewitness
By somebigguy
Rick Siegel post at LetsRoll911.org:
911 Eyewitness Hoboken, which just stunned the audience on a sneak preview in London, shows absolute proof that explosives were used. Several different kinds.Absolute Proof only a click away911 Eyewitness has evidence you can take to court. We are ready. Let's go.This clip has proof fires were out, OUT DAMNIT!This clip shows thermite CUTTING CHARGES!!! DAMNIT!This clip shows the explosives on the outside the firemen describe!This clip shows they used WMD on their own people! DAMNIT!This clip shows victims who KNEW the fire was out and were waiting for rescue as the evildoers blew them to kingdom come! DAMNIT!This will be the most controversial release ever.I am mad as hell and wont take this anymore!
Another point. What methodology is people like Jones using. Why does Jones take lines out of context like FEMA. Why does he state there are squibs on buidling 7 when their are none. Why doesn't Jones interview very many of his sources?
Why do Jones sources disagree with him? Why are they mad?
Why is Griffins research so sloppy
Griffin suggests there's no evidence that the alleged hijackers were even on the 9/11 planes, as their names don't appear on the flight manifests.
That is very easy to prove incorrect.
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_11_manifest.html
Why trust people who are so terrible with the facts.
Scott,
I'm not trying to be coy or confrontational.
Just a one question from a high level. What is it that I might find with addition research that would lead me to be satisfied with the current state (meaning what has been done up to now) of prosecuting the true criminal behind 9/11.
I don't need to be an expert, nor do you. We just need to point out that there has been a cover up, which is undeniable. The remedy and as far as finding a prosecuting authority to reopen cases and apply the appropriate resources is fairly straight forward.
Griffin suggests there's no evidence
I agree with Griffin. Perhaps you would like us to say:
There is no credible evidence?????
from Betterbadnews.com:
DAMNING VIDEO EVIDENCE OF 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK BLAMED ON OUTDATED NEWTONIAN PHYSICS.
MILITARY UPGRADES THE THIRD LAW OF CARTOON PHYSICS TO EXPLAIN MISSING PLANE WRECKAGE.
The BetterBadNews panel examine how the military makes use of the third law of cartoon physics to explain the absence of plane wreckage at two crash sites on september 11, 2001.
The Laws Of Cartoon Physics
Pentagon Video Release (court ordered via freedon of information act suit)
911 Revisited (video)
This a terrible video. You show photos/video of a person then apply the same temp to the whole building. Suggesting the temp couldn't get that hot.
Thats laughable!
If you research more you'll see that when they show the flashes you can look at closer videos which clearly show its almunium siding falling.
This is a horrible video.
Best Scott
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+bullshit
LMAO! Penn and Teller? :D
Scottsl,
So you are saying the temp was only 660 C (1220 F)?
Aluminum
Symbol Al Name Aluminum
Atomic Number 13 Atomic Mass 26.9815 amu
Melting Point 660°C
Wow, so you're going to take the words of a nameless firefighter over a FIRE CHIEF and another fire fighter who HAPPENS TO BE AN EDITOR of one of the biggest fire magazines in the country?
Nameless? Well, he was there, that chief wasn't. Please note, any "official" publications are not going to support alternate explanations, they can't.
No. In fact the temps were sometimes around 1000C.
Best Scott
Hey hey hey! It's your favorite liberal blogger here! Woooo!
For the record:
1. LiberalAvenger.com is a group blog. The blog post about Loose Change was not written by me but rather by a contributor who goes by the name "gordo" who also happens to have his own blog at http://www.appletreeblog.com/.
I never asked him, but I suspect that one of the reasons he posts on LiberalAvenger.com at times is that we have decent traffic.
2. I agree with gordo's criticism of Loose Change and the bulk of the myriad other silly conspiracy theories people have been posting and arguing about on our site.
3. NIGGAZ IS KRAZY is hyperbole. Malkin's post in question offensive to the core. Malkin is explicitly calling the [black] people in New Orleans "krazy" because they reelected [black guy] Ray Nagin for mayor. It should be clear from what I've written that I don't really believe that "NIGGAZ IS KRAZY" while Malkin apparently does. Who, then, has the problem? Is it me or is it her? It's her, isn't it?
ScottSl said...
No. In fact the temps were sometimes around 1000C.
Best Scott
I agree completely that the temps were that hot or hotter. The important question is whether that can be explained by the govt. story (including NIST). It can't.
That's what the real argument is about.
The Liberal Avenger,
Thanks for the added info. I admit that I didn't realise that it was a group blog.
For what worth, I'm guessing that I find Malkin as offensive as you do. Let's hear Jim and Pat say that.
So, I stand corrected. gordo was the "man in the street".
So, now, I'm visited gordo's blog.
The dude doesn't cross post the Loose Change hit piece to his own blog. Of course he doesn't have to. It doesn't change the logic.
But, stick with me. The man shows no sign of ever having posted on 9/11 Truth on he blog in the history of his blog.
My charge that, this particular post by "Screwloosechange" was less the quality that we should expect as readers, stands.
... by your opposition to exposing the truth, are part of the crimminal cover up...
I'm not trying to be coy or confrontational.
I'll respect Pat and James B's request to keep the profanity at a minimum, but after being called a criminal in a round-about and "coy" way by BG I hope they will pardon me when I tell him to go fuck himself.
Here's a tip pal. You cannot "suggest" the truth. It either is or isn't. All you have are THEORIES, and shitty ones at that. You have not presented ONE SHRED of evidence that cannot be disputed to back up what your sick mind believes.
Do us all a favor and stop pretending to be so mild mannered. The rest of us here have the balls to come out and say what we think of the other.
You think we're aiding and abetting the criminals who pulled this off? Come right out and say it.
Liberal Avenger,
You have a decent blog, but you seem to be reading a bit much into Malkin's post:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005235.htm
Nowhere does she indicate this is anything about blacks. You're putting words in her mouth. In fact, it's kind of moronic to imply that a person who herself is a minority would rag on another minority.
I happen to agree with Malkin on that point as well. Nagin let the city of NOLA down, big time by making multiple screwups and never once admitting culpability for his actions (or lack thereof). I don't care if he's green with purple spots, it's almost unbelievable that the people of NO re-elected him.
I don't care for Malkin much either. She's a bit too much of a rabid righty for me. But I think you're going after her for her socio-political convictions and not what she actually said on her blog. It comes off as misleading and in poor form.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I went over and read some of the comments to the original post at Liberal Avenger.
After a resounding spanking in the very first comment, gordo replies:
He says in debating which explanation is more likely the govt. explanation the CT / Loosechange, you have to go with where the bulk of evidence leads you.
This treatment is BS. Anyone who thinks and gives a damn realises that this isn't about some mock jury. It's not like we all somehow weigh one story vs. the other, and we all vote. That is insanity, and it the whooey that is part of the cover-up.
Anyone reasonable person (and there are lots of us) who sees Loose Change and see concerns, just wants a fair treatment by an authority that has the power to investigate.
My charge that, this particular post by "Screwloosechange" was less the quality that we should expect as readers, stands.
Considering you've tossed that charge out numerous times now, and have done so just about every time that SLC cites another blog that destroys the mountain of lies in Loose Change, it would seem more of a knee-jerk defense mechanism on your part than anything related to truth. Then you try to further counter the SLC post by linking to sites that on a credibility factor of 1 to 10 would fall about -1300.
Keep up the hilarity bg.
"I agree completely that the temps were that hot or hotter. The important question is whether that can be explained by the govt. story (including NIST). It can't.
That's what the real argument is about."
Says who? NIST has no problem simulating a normal office fire to acheive such temps. A fully developed fire has no problems reaching 1000C which was seen in the northeast corner of the south tower.
Also feel free to e-mail Thomas Eagar if you like with regards to some of his comments.
Also see
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
Best again
Scott
Chad,
I think G W Bush is committing crimes. This is, in my mind the most significant concerms of the Nation.
Much lower down on the scale....
Yes, I think everyone who opposes, obfuscates, lies, confuses about rational concerns about 9/11 and the need for a real investigation is participating, perhaps unwittingly, in the Cover Up of the true culprits of a large scale murder called 9/11.
ScottSl said...... Eagar ...
I agree that the evidence is well sourced with Eagar. Eagar is a complete mystery to me....
I did in fact email him over two years ago.
I have no idea why he is so mistaken. I find it kind of interesting, that we haven't heard much follow up from him, don't you?
When I spoke to him it seemed (like many others) he was angry about being taken out of context so often. He says he's doesn't want to argue with unreasonable people.
Also I want to thank you for the tone of your posts.
While I don't agree with your information I like that fact that you don't resort to personal attacks.
Scott
If I'm recalling correctly, Eagar pulled numbers out of his rear about the speed and mass of the planes, dirived kinetic energy figures, and used that as a lynch pin for:
a) why the 2nd tower hit fell first
b) why the towers fell when there were basicly was just 2 plane impacts and kerosene and building fires.
Eyewitnesses reported that the sprinkler system did work. Don't think Eagar factored that in.....
Nameless? Well, he was there, that chief wasn't. Please note, any "official" publications are not going to support alternate explanations, they can't.
Actually if you viewed the video that I showed you, THE CHIEF WAS THERE.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
While I don't want to bad mouth the guy, I believe much of Eagar information is far to generalistic.
Much of the sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes.
The 2nd tower I suspect fell first because of the lower impact location. Duration isn't everything.
No problem with b)
Best Scott
Eyewitnesses reported that the sprinkler system did work. Don't think Eagar factored that in.....
BG, you've personally informed me of why eyewintesses can't be relied upon.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ScottSl,
I know this sounds accustory... I'm trying to soften it...
I'm not sure what points we are arguing. You say Dr. Jones is pretty far off, if I recall.
Do you, or do you not want to see a real investigating body?
Perhaps I haven't made this clear:
If the World can have a honest comprehensive investigation, then I say:
SCREW LOOSE CHANGE
too.
"Do you, or do you not want to see a real investigating body?"
That's quite a subjective term.
But if the question is, would I like to see more information released to the public?...
Then my answer would be YES!!!
(Good news by the way NIST will be releasing all photos video etc. in Dec.)
Best, Scott
O... Kay.... Scott, (typed with a smile)
now I remember what we are arguing about...
Let me ask you this:
Have you paid much attention to Hopsicker?
Scott, I know you're not psychic, but what do you think the odds of those videos and photos laying to rest any conspiracy?
I guess I'm asking how substantial you think this evidence might be.
Just a little bit. I believe he's known best for Barry and the Boys.
I haven't really put him on the top of my reading list.
I try to deal with the truth movement guys, Loose Change etc. Guys higher up on the CT food chain.
A lot of his stuff goes back to the same thing. Secret CIA stuff and drugs. But I really don't want to buy his videos.
Many CT'ers ignore him all together.
Best
Scott
Chad, it will be fodder for more CT books videos etc.
There will be a whole host of new information that can be taken out of context.
Scott
The whole reason I wrote the response to Loose Change was that a lot of people are more apt to look at arguments that have political implications when those arguments are made by someone who shares their political perspective.
If you read the comments on Liberal Avenger, you'll find that some who discard just about anything written by conservatives were willing to read through the argument.
The point is not to convert people to my way of thinking, but to force people to look at both sides of the issue.
bg--
I do link the piece back to my blog, at the bottom of the post.
And I never suggested that the truth be determined by a majority vote. I do suggest, though, that when there are two competing theories, you can't just poke holes in one and declare victory for the other. You have to look at both theories, and go with the one that best explains all of the evidence.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scott,
fair comments.
The reason I asked is that, just by reading Hopsicker's online articles, and his online video, is about the quickest way you might begin to doubt the govt. BS about the hijackers.
I'm just trying to be straight with you and everybody about my suspicions (which will open me up to, more than ever, charges of paranoia): I'm not sure it's your job is to be open to the truth.
However, if I'm wrong and you are open, Hopsicker is my best starting point for background.
Gordo,
I appreciate you comments, and see merit.
One small clarification. My point wasn't that you didn't link back to your blog. My point was that you hadn't, to my eye, posted any serious treatment of 9/11 on your own blog. It's not an earth shattering complaint. To me it seems like you don't see the issues as worth a huge treatment including your own blog. As you might expect, I think it is the biggest deal in my lifetime, and possibly in the history of civilizatoin.
I might look at his stuff closer at a later time.
At least I agree with one of his statements
"a Well-financed disinformation campaign billing itself the “9.11 Truth Movement.”
Best Scott
The Liberal Avenger piece is a lot of poor grade presumptive reasoning.
It doesn't work on the internet. I think it works with juries but not on the internet where people are by themselves, just reading, and not pressured to go with the flow.
The Liberal Avenger piece is a lot of poor grade presumptive reasoning.
How I do love irony. That's Loose Change (and the greater conspiracy loons) to a T.
Post a Comment
<< Home