Response to a Commenter
Entropicalia makes a point in the comments:
Loose Change is sh*t. So what? That doesn't change the fact that the government's tall tale is sh*t, as well.
Fact is, you're not a physicist and neither am I. You can do all the "research" you want. You can counter my points with "facts" the same way I can counter yours. There are "experts" on both sides of the debate, chasing their tails and debunking and re-debunking each others' theories.
I'm enough of a physicist to know that there's limited value to the analysis of 9/11 from physics. I started college as a physics major although I switched to Poly Sci my sophomore year.
Too much evidence has been destroyed or confiscated for a real, unbiased investigation to take place. All any of us can do anymore is speculate.
Considering that investigation is not the Truthers forte and speculation is, perhaps this is fortunate?
This little circle-jerk of a blog has changed nothing about the big picture or ANYONE's worldviews, despite what you delusional, self-aggrandizing sheep think. Loose Change, at least, has gotten a large cadre of people thinking, questioning and discussing.
I don't buy it. Loose Change is popular with young adults; the people who are over 30 who like it--like that nutbar Gypsy from Oakland--all seem to be, um, practicing very alternative lifestyles.
And we certainly don't look at ourselves as deprogrammers. We're not trying to reach the folks who are caught up in the "Truth" movement. We're trying to prevent them from gaining more converts. If we can catch the folks who have heard about the film but not seen it, or those who've seen through some of it but not had the resources to recognize that all of it is equally bad, or the folks who are getting harangued by their roommate/boyfriend/daughter to watch it.
What exactly is it you're trying to accomplish here besides rubbing each others' tummies and making sure you all stay comfortable and warm inside your little Fox News bubble of our-government-is-mostly-benevolent "truth"?
I get a very small portion of my news from TV, mostly breaking events. I've seen O'Reilly maybe 10 times, Hannity & Colmes maybe 5.
We all deserve the real truth, and we all should be seeking it. This site is just a distraction.
As is Loose Change.
And, just so you know, calling people with an opinion that differs from yours 'nutbars,' 'psychos,' etc., does not lend your cause a shred of credence.
No, but it makes the blog a whole lot more entertaining to outsiders. If you can amuse and educate at the same time you'll do quite well.
posted by Pat @ 8:35 AM
69 comments
69 Comments:
I didn't like Entropicalia's post because I never like it when people make personal criticisms of other anonymous posters/bloggers on the internet, especially criticisms along the lines of "What are you wasting your time for . . . get a life, etc." We're all just adults having fun, IMO, when we visit these blogs and discuss whatever.
I've sent Loose Change to a lot of people over 30, including one almost 80. Reactions are always the same, neither convinced nor unconvinced, just "hmmm." Going back to 2001, there was 9/11 and all the grieving and then the anthrax so quickly, wars, etc.
Whats odd to me about you folks running this blog is that you are upset about people looking back on 9/11 at all and having issues with the official version. The one aspect of Loose Change that really bothers people is the sketchiness of the identities of the hijackers. The BBC article, still on the web, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
says "FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt." Well, why the hell are they still showing us those pictures and those names? That kind of stinks on ice. Its only logical to conclude that our government and media are still showing the same 19 pictures and names because they are trying to deceive us. Why?
Whats odd to me about you folks running this blog is that you are upset about people looking back on 9/11 at all and having issues with the official version.
No, we have a problem with questioning it because of faulty reasoning.
Well, why the hell are they still showing us those pictures and those names?
Probably because the story you link in from September 23...2001.
Its only logical to conclude that our government and media are still showing the same 19 pictures and names because they are trying to deceive us.
No, that's illogical to conclude. It's logical to conclude that they show us the pictures because those are the people who did it.
We're trying to prevent them from gaining more converts. If we can catch the folks who have heard about the film but not seen it, or those who've seen through some of it but not had the resources to recognize that all of it is equally bad, or the folks who are getting harangued by their roommate/boyfriend/daughter to watch it.
One reason I read this blog is because you try to disprove Loose Change. As a person who's "hmmm" about it, the conspiracies and speculations, I like to get the story from both sides. What you just said, the quote in bold, just makes me angry because you're trying to fuck with people's minds before they get a chance to view it or anything in that sort kind of like the government.
One reason I read this blog is because you try to disprove Loose Change. As a person who's "hmmm" about it, the conspiracies and speculations, I like to get the story from both sides. What you just said, the quote in bold, just makes me angry because you're trying to fuck with people's minds before they get a chance to view it or anything in that sort kind of like the government.
The idea that there are two sides to every story is fuzzy thinking at best and ludicrous at worst.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What's really odd Joan is, why are you so bad at doing some simple research? This info is also in the Loose Change viewers guide.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/02/attack/main316806.shtml
The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday. Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered. "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible"
I know it's frowned's upon to comment off topic. If you guys want me to, I'll delete this. I think these Upton Sinclair quotes are on topic:
“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.”
“If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”
And "John Swinton" said in 1880:
Intellectual prostitutes
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, 1880
John Swinton, the then preeminent New York journalist and Chief of Staff at the New York Times, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying the above.
Fascism isn't capitalist, it's socialistic (government owned/run economy).
There's a reason why Nazi faschism rose from the german socialist workers party. One would have to be pretty ignorant to link faschism and capitalsm.
The scond quote is similarily foolish.
And the story is based on the views of oe man who voiced those views almost 130 years ago. In other words, it's irrelevant.
And one of it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Yup, sounds pretty capitalist.
Shariq, we link to the movie on the sidebar, so it's not that we're trying to prevent people from seeing it, it's that we want them to be aware of the tricks LC uses to convince them of the conspiracy.
scott,
thank you for that cbs link but right in it is this line:
"Mueller provided no new information on the hijackers' identities beyond his statement at a briefing Friday for reporters. Neither did he name any of the places abroad where authorities now believe the conspiracy was initiated, or any of the other conspirators."
Saying doesn't make it so. We've got a recent history of enormous lies with this government of ours so why would Mueller's flat statement be acceptable when he needs to prove that exactly those 19 named individuals were on those planes and and that those 19 named individuals hijacked the planes.
Of course, whats also really SO bad is that our press hasn't insisted on getting the proof of the identities of the hijackers. Name the list of major reporters on the "War on Terror" beat and they all know there is this question about the identities of the hijackers but they've done nothing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If you want more detailed information you can go here.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html
"Saying doesn't make it so. We've got a recent history of enormous lies with this government of ours so why would Mueller's flat statement be acceptable when he needs to prove that exactly those 19 named individuals were on those planes and and that those 19 named individuals hijacked the planes."
But we have records of where they purchased their tickets, we have them on the passenger lists. We have some of them on camera right before they boarded the plane. We have their video taped confessions that they taped before the mission. We have interviews of many of their families stating they are dead. Saudi Arabia acknowledged that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens...
We can go on and on. There have been many stories on the ID's of the hijackers.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
But of course in your mind all of this is fake and your standard of proof is beyond anything I could possibly produce.
That is bull, Der Spiegel, hardly a neo-con rag, did a story on the hijackers a couple of years ago. They found that all the reports of hijackers being alive were based on mistaken identies because of common Arabic names.
If these guys are still alive then how come not a single one has shown up on Al Jazeera or CNN? Please explain that to me, I want to know.
I think this explains Joan's claims very accurately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
"The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality."
I find the sickest part of the conspiracy theorist, the part which really boils my blood is the money being made off dead people. How isn't that "Capitalism" at it's worse. PLEASE don't lecture us on how we are being duped by the capitalist media. Conspiracy sites like "911research" who are in the process of writing books and "Letsroll911" who sell "Bombs blew up the towers" T-Shirts ARE a part of the capitalist media. And what of people selling books like Griffin? How much money do you think he would make if he wrote yet another book on how the fire collapsed the towers?
Be open minded and fair. Look at what both sides are doing.
scott,
the fas link didn't work and the spiegel link took me to something in German.
If these are long articles, please find the exact part that proves the identity of the hijackers and quote that for me.
Of course, it seems very unlikely that the proof of the identity of the hijackers would be in some German magazine and not in the 9/11 Commission report which, according to Griffin's Omissions and Distortions, "simply repeats, in the first few pages (1-5) the FBI's original list of names." And the report doesn't include passenger manifests and people who have tried to get manifests have been refused. Where did Spiegel get the manifests?
The fact that several of those people (including Mohammed Atta) had reported lost/stolen passports would make a careful investigator suspicious about true identities because more than one person in a group of only 19 having reported a lost/stolen passport is so very odd. The reason passports get stolen is to take the identity, no?
According to Griffin's book, Walid al-Shehri, the guy that the 9/11 commission says stabbed a flight attendant, went to the US embassy in Morocco on 9/22/2001. He's a pilot for Royal Air Maroc. Is that not too much of a coincidence that there's another Walid al-Shehri who was a flying hijacker pilot?
Some of them talked to the Telegraph newspaper and one other went to the US embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to protest his innocence.
Now, why would Al Jazeera be a credible source? Have they ever explained how they get these "Osama bin Laden tapes" they keep running?
I'm not impressed with CNN. I was watching one of their shows this afternoon that had an audience and they asked for a show of hands of who found the media's coverage of the Haditha story "negative." ???? Whats a positive story they could do about a dead one-year old baby?
He's a pilot for Royal Air Maroc.
A man named Waleed isn't, a man named Wail is (Waleed's brother had the same name and took part in the 9/11 attack). That Wail was a victim of identity theft.
Odd that the brother of Waleed and Wail (the hijacker one) says they are dead and were 'brainwashed' (most likely a reference to al-Qaeda).
You double click the link I gave then copy and paste it into your browser.
"of course, it seems very unlikely that the proof of the identity of the hijackers would be in some German magazine and not in the 9/11 Commission report which, according to Griffin's Omissions and Distortions, "simply repeats, in the first few pages (1-5) the FBI's original list of names." And the report doesn't include passenger manifests and people who have tried to get manifests have been refused. Where did Spiegel get the manifests?"
Griffin's Omissions and Distortions book is fiction.
He is either really really stupid, or really dishonest.
What proof does he have that the manifests were EVER refused. You can get the manifests from many places. Here's just one link
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif
If you want more, go here
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html
The reporters at Der Spiegel interviewed where the BBC reports came from and found some of the errors.
"Walid al-Shehri, the guy that the 9/11 commission says stabbed a flight attendant, went to the US embassy in Morocco on 9/22/2001. He's a pilot for Royal Air Maroc. Is that not too much of a coincidence that there's another Walid al-Shehri who was a flying hijacker pilot?"
In the article it explans the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari.
Dateline NBC also did a story interviewing the correct family which shows that indeed al-Shehri is dead.
Also see
http://www.911myths.com/html/wail_al-shehri_still_alive.html
Griffin is either a dishonest fool or he has the detective skills of a 10 year old.
Now, why would Al Jazeera be a credible source? Have they ever explained how they get these "Osama bin Laden tapes" they keep running?
I'm not impressed with CNN.
I don't care, pick another source that you like then, the World Weekly News, the National Enquirer, Penthouse...
Not a single hijacker with the same name, descriptive details and appearance has appeared anywhere since 9/11. Period. You can't point to single case, no matter how much you try.
The only cases you conspiracy theory nuts can show is people who happen to have the same name, but share no other details. Like every freaking Arab in the world has a completely unique name or something.
This logic is like claiming that Scott Peterson didn't kill his wife, because Scott Peterson, a convenience store clerk from Nebraska was in Omaha at the time.
Moronic.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
scott,
do you even read your links?
Here's the first paragraph of the link that you think proves the manifests are public:
"Who was on the 9/11 planes? There are lists of passengers online, but they’re not all accurate (some are actually very inaccurate), and very few include the alleged hijackers. None of the lists have an official stamp of approval, either, which has in itself led to many theories. Maybe the hijackers were never on board, for instance. Maybe most of the passengers don’t even exist."
Yea of cource I read the links did you read the next line?
We don’t actually subscribe to these ideas, but without any official documentation it’s hard to prove a point, one way or the other. Which is why we were very interested to see a photo of what looked like a passenger manifest in the Terry McDermott book, Perfect Soldiers. We emailed the author, and he said yes: apparently these were amongst a bunch of investigative files he obtained from the FBI while researching his book.
I know there are conflicts with the manifests. But that hardly means that they aren't out there.
Griffin makes claims that the hijackers aren't on the
manifests. He claims that they aren't out there.
Again this is hogwash.
Griffin error comes from his footnotes where he trys to use the CNN link here to support his claim.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulaziz_al-Omari
Note the confusion over this fellows name and that the original FBI identification has the same birthdate of the wrong person. Where did the FBI get that birthdate.
Note also the information on the bottom about wrongly accused, in particular the Bukharis and read those wikipedia items for more confusion. How did their names and identities get into the mix, even that they had rented a car in Boston and drove it to Portland. And even that they were on passenger manifests. But one was dead a year before 9/11 and the other fellow was found alive in his own apartment when a SWAT team raided the place.
Elsewhere the government is identifying passengers from DNA but not the hijackers. How so when the families of the "hijackers" are known and could give DNA material to make a match?
As I noted above, Griffin references the page numbers in the 9/11 Report.
Your link's author says he believes Mr. McDermott and thats about all its worth.
"Note the confusion over this fellows name and that the original FBI identification has the same birthdate of the wrong person. Where did the FBI get that birthdate. "
Because of the early confusion the FBI had two birthdates
http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_al_omari_still_alive.html
He's even on a video confession.
"Elsewhere the government is identifying passengers from DNA but not the hijackers. How so when the families of the "hijackers" are known and could give DNA material to make a match?"
The FBI has DNA profiles of some of the hijackers
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/27/hijackers.remains/
"As I noted above, Griffin references the page numbers in the 9/11 Report.
Your link's author says he believes Mr. McDermott and thats about all its worth."
No it also comes from the Boston Globe.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif
Your link says the FBI didn't say where the DNA was recovered from, the crash scenes or a place where the person was known to have been. If its from a hotel room or his apartment, what does that prove even if its matched with his family?
Why would the birthdate of a completely innocent person who was in Saudi Arabia be in the mix at all?
"Your link says the FBI didn't say where the DNA was recovered from, the crash scenes or a place where the person was known to have been. If its from a hotel room or his apartment, what does that prove even if its matched with his family?"
I'm guesing it would prove that...uh that he was on the plane.
"Why would the birthdate of a completely innocent person who was in Saudi Arabia be in the mix at all?"
Beacuse they made errors early on and had confusions with other innocent people of the same name.
Whether its a guy named McDermott or the Boston Globe, where's the authentication?
Here's a collection of posters with Bush in them but I don't think Bush actually posed for them and I don't think the White House put them out on the internet.
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp
If its from a hotel room or his apartment, what does that prove even if its matched with his family?
They're going to sift through countless hairs in hotel rooms and somehow find the ones belonging to the hijackers? Your point is moot, DNA would only be matched to remains.
Here's a collection of posters with Bush in them but I don't think Bush actually posed for them and I don't think the White House put them out on the internet.
You're equating manifests to random posters a bunch of partisans made?
"Whether its a guy named McDermott or the Boston Globe, where's the authentication?"
Well Joan the question is what is your standard of proof. If you feel so strongly then send in a FOIA.
DNA found in a hotel room or your own apartment proves you were on a plane? Go back and read that link and see that the FBI didn't say where the DNA came from.
That doesn't sound like a good reason why the birthdate of an innocent person would be used. Note the confused identities, especially those Bukharis. Lost and stolen passports, identity of a dead person, identities of innocent people who were also in flight schools.
Ziad Jarrah, supposedly the pilot of Flt. 93, is another odd one, with instances of his having been in 2 places at the same time (in other words, there was more than one Ziad Jarrah).
Go back and read that link and see that the FBI didn't say where the DNA came from.
They shouldn't have to. They wouldn't have found it in a hotel room (unless they ejaculated and left it around, and even then you couldn't be certain it was them or another occupant).
You don't seem to understand how DNA works, you need either certain items (hair follicles or enough ejaculate or blood) or remains of a body. The only place they could've found enough was at the incident scene.
scott,
your link says that the FBI wouldn't say where it was from, ergo, the FBI did not say it was from remains and the author of the article notes other possibilities for the collection of DNA, such as hotel rooms.
You could make up a passenger manifest and put it on the internet. Does that look like a hard thing to do? Its just a diagram and some names. We went to war over forged documents about uranium from Niger. Forgeries and fakeries abound.
Griffin's book says that people who requested the manifests have been refused.
shawn,
the link says the FBI wouldn't say where the DNA was found.
shawn,
the link says the FBI wouldn't say where the DNA was found.
Right, but there's this thing called "thinking".
You figure which places it COULDN'T have come from and when there's only one viable possibility you figure that's where it came from.
"DNA found in a hotel room or your own apartment proves you were on a plane? Go back and read that link and see that the FBI didn't say where the DNA came from."
No they didn't say. So your working on some account that you just made up?
"That doesn't sound like a good reason why the birthdate of an innocent person would be used. "
I thought it sound perfectly logical. I see no problem with the early confusion. They could of gotten it from immigration.
If you read more of the link I thought it was explained quite well. Photo ID has matched from the ATM camera. http://www.911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_al_omari_still_alive.html
Omari is also in the farewell suicide video
"Ziad Jarrah, supposedly the pilot of Flt. 93, is another odd one, with instances of his having been in 2 places at the same time (in other words, there was more than one Ziad Jarrah)."
That one is more than likey again errors on multible people.
Oof. You guys aren't trying to disprove Loose Change; you're trying to disprove Bush's "Fool me once . . . you can't get fooled again." If there was proof of the identities of whoever it was that hijacked the 4 jets, it would be available in plain English, not have to be surmised and supposed on the basis of what's "probably" true. And it would have been in the 9/11 report.
Those 2 Bukharis, including the dead one, renting the car in Boston to drive it to Portland, what kind of surmise explains that other than deliberate use of phony identities by SOMEONE? And when you know for a fact that phony identities are used, you can't trust any identities.
"Griffin's book says that people who requested the manifests have been refused."
Griffins fictional book has a request from the airlines.
"Those 2 Bukharis, including the dead one, renting the car in Boston to drive it to Portland, what kind of surmise explains that other than deliberate use of phony identities by SOMEONE? And when you know for a fact that phony identities are used, you can't trust any identities."
Love that logic. But the 9/11 commision addresses document fraud.
"Commission spokesman Jonathan Stull stated "The Sept. 11 hijackers, surprisingly, used their real names when boarding their flights that morning." The hijackers had liberally used document fraud prior to that date, (9/11/01) some to ease entrance into the United States, others to move around once they were here and to obtain drivers' licenses they needed to board the airplanes."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5594385
The whole discussion on this whole blog is about whether or not you buy the September 11 Commission version. How can you cite the September 11 Commission as a source when their credibility is whats at issue?
"The whole discussion on this whole blog is about whether or not you buy the September 11 Commission version. How can you cite the September 11 Commission as a source when their credibility is whats at issue?
I don't understand first you say
"If there was proof of the identities of whoever it was that hijacked the 4 jets, it would be available in plain English, not have to be surmised and supposed on the basis of what's "probably" true. And it would have been in the 9/11 report."
So I post something spelled out from the report in plain English.
Then you state
"How can you cite the September 11 Commission as a source when their credibility is whats at issue?"
WTF!!! And no, I don't subscribe to the notion that I can't post anything from the report. Especially if its credibilty is questioned.
Remember, conspiracy theorists have the luxury of ignoring any evidence that contradicts their conclusions, that is why they are conspiracy theorists to begin with.
Their report that the 19 hijackers carried out the attack cannot be trusted, because it does not fit the evidence. The evidence being that if you ignore the report, which is of course unreliable, the commission has provided no proof that they 19 hijackers were involved.
You got to love the logic involved.
scott,
one of the reasons the 9/11 report is at issue is that they didn't do "exacting investigative work" to establish the identity of the hijackers, among other things.
james,
There are 2 kinds of people: people who think there are 2 kinds of people and people who think its a little more complicated.
The 9/11 commission had plenty of information that identities of the hijackers were at issue. They had plenty of information about these "fundamentalist" Muslims meeting in Las Vegas and gambling, boozing and getting lap dances. They had odd stuff like a returned letter that Ziah Jarrad supposedly sent to his girlfriend in Germany where he says goodbye to her but its returned because the address is wrong. She's been his girlfriend for 5 years. He lived with her at that address. But his goodbye letter to her has a wrong address so that she doesn't get it and it can be returned and come into the possession of the FBI?
Well, theres a lot out there and the 9/11 commission decided to omit it, as they did with the 47 steel core columns.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
They had plenty of information about these "fundamentalist" Muslims meeting in Las Vegas and gambling, boozing and getting lap dances.
So. I have been offered drinks by numerous so called devout Muslims. Within weeks of the Taliban falling you could buy porn on the streets of Kabul. It would not suprise me at all if these guys were partying in Vegas. Their sins were going to be forgiven by martyrdom, in their eyes they could do anything they wanted.
"one of the reasons the 9/11 report is at issue is that they didn't do "exacting investigative work" to establish the identity of the hijackers, among other things."
Honestly we don't know all of the behind the scenes research they did. But it really doesn't matter beacuse whatever they state (or anyone else states, videotapes, audio records etc.) could be passed off as fiction in your mind. Your standard of proof is beyond approach.
Uh Ramzi partied before he bombed the WTC.
"Sins" are forgiven in their ideology if its used to infiltrate infidels to destroy them.
Your standard of proof is beyond approach.
The problem isn't that her standard of proof is above aproach. If it were, there's no way she'd beleive a word of the conspiracy theory nonsense. Rather, she picks and chooses "the truth" based on her personal biases, and then demands an unreachably high standard of proof for things she beleives to be false, while providing an unbeleivably low standard of proof for things she agrees with.
I just noticed I got called out.
I started college as a physics major although I switched to Poly Sci my sophomore year.
I wasn't addressing you, specifically, Pat. I was addressing people in general who try to argue physics based on he-said-she-said. It's ridiculous. Great, you have some education behind you. That means you can have faith in what you believe. That doesn't mean I'm going to believe you over anyone else. I pick which research and conclusions sound the most plausible to me, period.
I don't buy it. Loose Change is popular with young adults; the people who are over 30 who like it....
If Loose Change wasn't promoting discussion, this blog would not exist.
We're trying to prevent them from gaining more converts...
Why? Why are you so threatened by this little movie if it's just propagandistic misinformation that isn't even prompting people to discuss 9/11, as you say?
I get a very small portion of my news from TV...
That's nice. You completely ignored the question I asked in that paragraph, though.
As is Loose Change.
And I agree. But to say that anyone and everyone who doesn't believe that 9/11 was a surprise attack by 19 Arab hi-jackers is a psycho, idiot, etc. is not helping anyone get at the truth. Again, you've missed my point.
No, but it makes the blog a whole lot more entertaining to outsiders...
Entertaining, sure. It also makes you look like lightweights to resort to name-calling to prove your point...whatever that may be; still not quite clear on that one.
Also, to Joan:
I wasn't aiming to construe that I feel the people who run this site should "...get a life." I am honestly curious as to the purpose of this blog. If the purpose is, as Pat says, to 'keep people from being swept up in Avery's bullshit' (to paraphrase), then I don't think he's doing a very good job. Especially considering the way he beats down ANYONE who holds an opinion different from his, rather than just debunking the finer points of the film.
To me, insinuating that people are insane or moronic simply because they don't hold the same opinion as you doesn't constitute "adults having fun"--more like pre-schoolers.
Entro, I think you are misjudging the level of discourse needed to engage in an intelligent debate versus receiving a pejorative.
If you want to argue, for example, that the Iraq War is bad policy, or that the 9/11 commission should have done a better job, you will get no insults from me. I may not agree with your viewpoint, and I may point out the ways in which I strongly disagree with you, but those are at least reasonable and logical views to hold.
If you, however, want to argue that the Holocaust or the Srebrenica massacre never happened, that the US military is testing anti-matter weapons on Jupiter, or that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon rather than the plane witnessed by hundreds of people, that is an entirely different matter indeed. Those are all irrational views entirely devoid of merit, and contradictory to reality. Incidently, they are also views held by prominent figures in the 9/11 "truth" movement. If I happen to point out that you are an "idiot" for holding those views, so be it. I am under no obligation to pretend the world is flat and black is white in order to protect the egos of the insane.
If I believed a missile hit the Pentagon, James - which, by the by, I do not - and you believed that it was a plane, why do you have to call me an idiot in order to present that argument effectively?
You don't.
And, in fact, calling me an idiot in the course of citing facts and figures, even if they hold water, only serves to weaken your argument in the end.
If one has a point to prove, and evidence to back that point up, one should not ever need to resort to petty name-calling in order to get said point across.
No, we do both. If you say something really stupid, we will call you an idiot, and then demonstrate in-depth why you are an idiot.
Well except for the anti-matter on Jupiter one, that was too insane to touch.
You try reading all these bizarre theories all day, then have people come on your blog and call you a Zionest shill, and then maintain the demeanor of a college librarian. Sometimes people just deserve mockery. If they want to be treated intelligently and with respect, then they need to act in a manner which deserves it.
Mmhm. Well, I've been called an idiot, psycho and worse on this board simply for disagreeing with people, and I tend to keep a pretty cool head throughout, so...your point is moot.
Go ahead and call me and others what you will, it's your right, after all. Just stop trying to justify it to me because it is not justifiable.
As I've said before, the way you people act is analogous to fundamentalist Christians (and I'll gladly expound on that point if you like) and it's really not helping your cause.
Actually it's the CTs that act like the fundies. Like evolutionists, we have the evidence on our side and about all the CTs can do is try to discredit our evidence or twist, distort, and present false claims.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As I've said before, the way you people act is analogous to fundamentalist Christians (and I'll gladly expound on that point if you like) and it's really not helping your cause.
I would say you have it the other way around. It is the conspiracy theorists who have an almost religious fervor in their beliefs. They know with a passion they are right, no matter the evidence. They grab on to one small quote from their prophets and then interpret it to fit their fervent beliefs, all other evidence to the contrary.
All I argue is the facts, what I can point to as hard evidence. All the evidence, not just the small part that suits me. I don't need the divine interventions of some evil nameless Jewish conspirator to explain the holes in my argument. Conspiracy theorists are the faith based organization here.
entropicalia,
I agree with you on that point about the name calling.
James, to say "you don't believe what we do, so we're going to persecute you!" is exactly the way fundamentalists behave.
I have yet to see a "Truther" personally attack any one of you for believing the official story.
I've seen you be personally attacked for the way you present those beliefs, but not for the beliefs themselves. The moment someone says anything that contradicts what you believe, however, you jump all over them with insults to their intelligence and character.
James, to say "you don't believe what we do, so we're going to persecute you!" is exactly the way fundamentalists behave.
Persecute? How exactly are we persecuting you? You chose to come on this website, nobody forced you. Just because someone called you an idiot hardly constitutes persecution. You want persecution try being a Jew in Saudi Arabia, or a Republican in Seattle.
Today has been five years since the devastation of the world trade centers, pentagon and flight 93 attacks. As a new York City resident, I find the film to be thought provoking and needed. Although I may not buy all of the "facts" shown in the movie nor do I truly believe that our government is behind the attacks but I do agree with the right to make this film. We SHOULD be questioning why we dont know the full story. We SHOULD be able to see the security cameras from the hotel and gas station in washington DC. As a CITIZEN of this city I want to KNOW what is really going on. Why does this cabinet want to keep everything a secret? Dont come to me with "homeland security" bull shit because I was a mere thirty blocks away when this happened. This was a part of my life and my friends lives. If our government did have something to do with it we need to KNOW and we need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Everyone seems to be ok with loosing so many of our natural rights and practically handing them over. I AM NOT. NO ONE will scare me into moving out of my city; NO ONE will scare me out of flying in a plane and NO ONE will scare me to speak my mind. WE SHOULD ALL BE SEEKING THE TRUTH and DISUCSSING HOW WE ARE BEING FUCKED IN THE ASS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home