Friday, June 02, 2006

Infiltrate Us, Please!

Got a chance to watch the first segment of the new video by the Loosers. Note: although this says final edition in the intro, it's clearly not that; this is just a bunch of footage that they have to edit down and insert into the exisiting movie (possibly to make up for the loss of the Naudet footage).

Barrie Zwicker is the first subject of the new footage. As Markyx has noted, the guy talks like he's had one too many cups of coffee. Hilariously, he leads right in with whether the 9-11 Truth Movement has been infiltrated by the government.

"But of course, if they were going to infiltrate labor unions, civil rights movements, peace movements, which we know they've done, it's all in the record, why wouldn't they infiltrate our movement. I mean, what would they be thinking if they weren't? They'd be squandering taxpayers dollars if they did not infiltrate our movement!"

Sounds like a guy who's begging to be in a secret FBI file somewhere so that he can brag about it to his nutbar friends.

Here's Zwicker's nutbar "testimony" to Cynthia McKinney at the 9-11 Citizen's Commission. Note that right off the bat he admits that he doesn't have any evidence to give; he's just a "popularizer":

BARRIE ZWICKER: I would not describe myself as a researcher actually. I don't want to, I don't want to correct your introduction, we were getting along so well, but truly I think that I am, I, I see myself as a popularizer. I have done research, I was an investigative journalist for Canada's national newspaper for a time and all journalism should be investigative. But it turns out I think I'm a, I'm a popularizer. And the voice I will use in my prepared remarks today is different from the voice I would use in the DVD that will premiere tonight, The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw.

Okay, nice little shameless plug for your movie, but what is your evidence?

BARRIE ZWICKER: That was an interesting diversion. Thank you audience person. Now in the interest of not taking other peoples' time I will stick pretty closely to my prepared remarks here which begin this way.

00:03:10:29 "History is bunk" said Henry Ford. Interestingly he was a supporter of Hitler sending the Fuhrer a birthday gift each year. Another quote: "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" wrote Santayana whose reputation for thoughtfulness was a little better than Ford's. Now my responsibility here today is actually not so much to tell background behind the making of Great Conspiracy although I'll digress for a moment with a little tad. Moments from now boxes are supposed to arrive at the back there that contain the first issues of and I was talked into this, Barrie Zwicker's "9/11 Resource Guide," 52 pages.

00:04:00:02 And in it there's a story about how The Great Conspiracy was made but mainly it's a transcript of the DVD. It's probably the best list of 9/11 websites assembled anywhere. It includes John McCurdy's 9/11 literature survey divided into nine sections, very sound and other resource materials like that. It will go on sale in, in moments.

00:04:27:00 But my responsibility is not to discuss the making of the that, I hope, popular, another popular DVD because The Great Deception did prove itself in the market if you will. My responsibility is to address 9/11 and history. And to be truly responsible I must add the media. And to say there's an intersection between history and the media, however, comes close to being a misstatement unless we mean relatively insignificant and/or officially approved history. Now an example of officially unapproved and significant history would be Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States.

I think we've finally found the harmless guy for the Screw Loose Change Nutbar-o-Meter:


At 02 June, 2006 11:48, Blogger Jujigatami said...

have you ever seen anything - a book, a web page, a blog - from a relative of a 9/11 victim saying that the "truthers" are degrading their loved one and they wish it weren't so?

I know a lot of family members and most of them are disgusted by the "truthers". The ones that aren't, just think they (the truthers) are stupid idiots and don't take offense because they (the truthers) don't know better.

But here's the deal from a personal standpoint.

I was there, I saw it all. I SAW both planes hit, and SAW they were commercial airliners. I felt the heat of the WTC fires on my face as I watched the towers burn. I saw dead bodies, I saw people jump and fall to their deaths. I did first aid on injured people we pulled into our building as the towers collapsed and smoke, dust, and debris flew everywhere. I lost friends in the towers. It is something that has scarred me for life.


And I wish you would stop.

At 02 June, 2006 11:49, Blogger Chad said...

I love how investigations like the 9/11 Commission, the FEMA report, the NIST report.... All of these "don't count" because they fail to conclude with the statement:

"The government was in on it."

And another thing entro. If all of the evidence has been destroyed stop calling for an independent investigation, because they would apparently have jack shit to investigate.

That's one of the Loosers favorite games to play. Call for an independent investigation to look at evidence that they say has already been destroyed. Win-win for them.

At 02 June, 2006 12:12, Blogger Chad said...

Entro, you're obviously entitled to your opinion that magical explosives (of which there is NO circumstantial evidence to support other than pictures of "squibs" which have been explained away through physics, reason, and logic) brought down the towers and you are free to go around pretending that the infernos and structural damage caused by the planes had nothing to do with their collapse.

You are certainly free to do that.

And I am free to call you a borderline retard.

Also, please look up the definition of "circumstantial evidence". And if you want to ever be taken seriously in the future, keep Griffin's book out of the conversation.

At 02 June, 2006 12:16, Blogger Jujigatami said...

It hurts MY feelings to be called insane because I feel that things don't add up.

See, that's the DEFINITION of insanity.

And no, I honestly don't feel that questioning the official story is disrespectful to the victims.

Yes, that's because you are insane.

As for the "I was there" card. I was. I SAW it. You may live in DC, but I FUCKING SAW THE PLANES HIT!!!!

I saw the damage to the towers. No one, NO ONE that was there and saw the size of the holes in the towers and saw and felt the fires HAS ANY DOUBT WHAT CAUSED THE TOWERS TO FALL. We don't need an investigation in to what caused the towers to fall, BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW, WE SAW IT!

Here's a newsflash you insane moron, it wasn't explosives, it was a gigantic fucking plane ramming into the towers at 400+ miles per hour.

No one that witnessed it has ANY doubts about that.

At 02 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger Chad said...

Another question I have is, if I'm being hoodwinked...what is the point?

Entro, that's the million dollar question. Conspiracy theories have been around probably as long as people had imaginations. Personally, I don't feel that the people spreading these theories really have much to gain (unless they're making a profit from the sale of, say, a DVD). Aside from the hope of maybe spreading enough doubt and distrust to cause anarchy, I can't see what their point is either.

I honestly think it's more of a psychological thing for them. But that's just my opinion.

And I apologize for my comment earlier about the retard. I get carried away sometimes and name-calling does nothing to further any conversation.

At 02 June, 2006 16:00, Blogger Chad said...

Debunk, I'm sure there are individuals and small groups that look at conspiracy theory as a means to acheive some goal, whether it's financial or political.

But, IMO, the majority of them just need to not trust the government for whatever reason.

At 02 June, 2006 18:00, Blogger shawn said...

Entro, if you can say that the towers falling looked exactly like this without joking, you're insane.

Controlled demolition

At 03 June, 2006 04:39, Blogger Chad said...

the cutter charges normally proceed from the bottom up (although they don't have to), but that doesn't mean the building will collapse from the bottom up

Really? They don't have to? Kinda defeats the purpose of a controlled demolition if you have no control over it.

there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job...

Uhm, no there isn't.

... and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims.

Wait, so Avery is on OUR side? Doesn't take much for you guys to turn on each other does it?

FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed.

This entire statement is a patent lie. I have the FEMA report on WTC7 printed out in front of me right now. Go grab yourself a copy off INTERNET and give it a read.

The rest of your post has already been debunked countless times on this and many other sites. And just to be clear, I never asked "What's the point?" Entro did. So much for your reading comprehension skills.

At 03 June, 2006 09:59, Blogger shawn said...

the "war on terror" is simoly a blatant power grab, for both control of domestic politics and control of Mideast Oil.


Insidejob did you just ignore my link? It shows what an actual demolition looks like, nothing like WTC7 collapsing. And, no, you've mistaken the terms objective and subjective. To an objective observer it's obvious it wasn't brought down with a controlled demolition. To the subjective moron (you, in this case) it was taken down, and no evidence to the contrary will even take root in that pea-sized mass of pink flesh you call a brain.

At 03 June, 2006 10:00, Blogger shawn said...

make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint

Well first, it didn't just fall into its footprint. Secondly, since the building was 95 percent air it could ONLY fall straight down.

At 03 June, 2006 18:57, Blogger Chad said...

but because the buildings collapsed DOWNWARD (like the law of gravity would have them do) doesn't mean controlled demolition wasn't used, sherlock.

... God this is too easy....

Well of course they collapsed DOWNWARD (buildings don't collapse UP now do they?). Thanks for putting that in all caps. I really don't see your point here. Because they collapsed it means it was CD? No... it doesn't. And yet you and other CTers constantly ignore the staggering lack of proof of explosives.

Does it not bother you people that not one legitimate structural engineer agrees with your crackpot CD theory?

Does it bother you that no company that specializes in CD (including the world's foremost controlled demolition company) doesn't buy the CD theory?

Maybe I'm just "nitpicking" again, but these would be good people to have on your side if you're gonna present a CD argument.

Here's a fun little fact. The record height of a building that was imploded via a controlled demolition was 439 feet, roughly a third of one of the towers. It took the company FOUR MONTHS to prep the building, 24 days to set the 4,118 charges, and ended up using 36000 feet of detonating cord.

Multiply those numbers by 3 and you'll have an idea of how long and how much it would take to bring down just ONE of the towers via CD.

Now, when you're done doing that math, explain to me how all that was done with not one employee who worked in the building noticing any of the 12,000 charges. And then walk me through how they mananged to plant them in that mysterious "power down" time frame.


Post a Comment

<< Home