Monday, May 22, 2006

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.


At 22 May, 2006 09:18, Blogger Unknown said...

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

At 22 May, 2006 09:25, Blogger Unknown said...

Here's a recent post from the blog that you so happily are referencing and quoting from to support your Loose Change Smear:

May 21st at 3:22 pm by LA
Malkin(s)watch :: Another episode of “Negroes sure iz CRAZY!” :: May :: 2006



At 22 May, 2006 09:47, Blogger Unknown said...


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?

At 22 May, 2006 10:07, Blogger nes718 said...

Here's another "dubious" observation:

Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out"

At 22 May, 2006 10:07, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 10:12, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 22 May, 2006 10:14, Blogger Chad said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 10:16, Blogger Chad said...

Of course, pay no mind to the pictures of American Airlines debris at the Pentagon.

Planted, faked, cruise missle.... Whatever the rhetoric is today.

At 22 May, 2006 10:36, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 22 May, 2006 10:52, Blogger Unknown said...


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

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.

At 22 May, 2006 10:58, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 22 May, 2006 11:08, Blogger nes718 said...

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?

At 22 May, 2006 11:27, Blogger Unknown said...



At 22 May, 2006 11:47, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 11:55, Blogger Unknown said...

Preview of new 911 Eyewitness
By somebigguy
Rick Siegel post at
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!

At 22 May, 2006 12:00, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 22 May, 2006 12:03, Blogger Unknown said...

Griffin suggests there's no evidence

I agree with Griffin. Perhaps you would like us to say:

There is no credible evidence?????

At 22 May, 2006 12:09, Blogger Unknown said...



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)

At 22 May, 2006 12:14, Blogger nes718 said...

LMAO! Penn and Teller? :D

At 22 May, 2006 12:16, Blogger Unknown said...


So you are saying the temp was only 660 C (1220 F)?

Symbol Al Name Aluminum
Atomic Number 13 Atomic Mass 26.9815 amu
Melting Point 660°C

At 22 May, 2006 12:18, Blogger nes718 said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 12:30, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 12:34, Blogger Unknown said...

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".

At 22 May, 2006 12:43, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 12:46, Blogger Chad said...

... 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.

At 22 May, 2006 12:51, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 22 May, 2006 12:53, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 12:59, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 22 May, 2006 13:04, Blogger Unknown said...

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?

At 22 May, 2006 13:13, Blogger Unknown said...

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.....

At 22 May, 2006 13:24, Blogger Chad said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 13:29, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 22 May, 2006 13:32, Blogger Unknown said...


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?

At 22 May, 2006 13:34, Blogger Unknown said...

Perhaps I haven't made this clear:

If the World can have a honest comprehensive investigation, then I say:



At 22 May, 2006 13:41, Blogger Unknown said...

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?

At 22 May, 2006 13:54, Blogger Chad said...

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.

At 22 May, 2006 14:28, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 22 May, 2006 14:34, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 22 May, 2006 14:35, Blogger Unknown said...


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.

At 23 May, 2006 07:31, Blogger shawn said...

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