Sunday, June 04, 2006

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.


At 04 June, 2006 10:18, Blogger shawn said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 10:27, Blogger shawn said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 11:20, Blogger Unknown said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 11:23, Blogger shawn said...

Fascism isn't capitalist, it's socialistic (government owned/run economy).

At 04 June, 2006 11:43, Blogger Alex said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 12:01, Blogger shawn said...

National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Yup, sounds pretty capitalist.

At 04 June, 2006 12:41, Blogger Pat said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 15:35, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 19:10, Blogger shawn said...

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).

At 04 June, 2006 19:40, Blogger James B. said...

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.


At 04 June, 2006 21:25, Blogger shawn said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 21:28, Blogger shawn said...

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?

At 04 June, 2006 21:37, Blogger shawn said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 21:46, Blogger shawn said...

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.

At 04 June, 2006 23:24, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 05 June, 2006 08:09, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 05 June, 2006 16:11, Blogger shawn said...

Uh Ramzi partied before he bombed the WTC.

"Sins" are forgiven in their ideology if its used to infiltrate infidels to destroy them.

At 05 June, 2006 17:27, Blogger Alex said...

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.

At 06 June, 2006 12:35, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 06 June, 2006 13:03, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 06 June, 2006 13:34, Blogger James B. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 06 June, 2006 13:36, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 07 June, 2006 16:37, Blogger James B. said...

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.

At 11 September, 2006 21:43, Blogger John Thomas said...

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