Monday, July 10, 2006

Teachers Gone Wild

I know a lot of Loosers would rather watch videos than read, so here is today's clip from Michelle Malkin's Vent, dealing with crazy professors, including "Scholar" for 9/11 "Truth" Kevin Barrett. I can't believe she left off Judy "Keebler Elves" Wood though...

45 Comments:

At 10 July, 2006 11:11, Blogger Killtown said...

"Loosers"

Wow James, how old are you?

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:20, Blogger Alex said...

What the heck do Loosers have to do with how old James is?

If you're just complaining about his terminology, you may want to look at your own diatribes, Mr. Official-Conspiracy-Theory / Concidence-Theorist.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:20, Blogger James B. said...

Someone who supports Loose Change is a "Looser". It is called a "pun".

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:27, Blogger Killtown said...

It's called immature. I can imagine you using those childish terms during a professional debate.

Also, can you show me one "lie" in LC?

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:28, Blogger Unknown said...

James,

Regardless of terms, age, etc...

The idea that you think Malkin's garbage is a good thing to link to is one of my least fav. things about you.

"Hot Air" couldn't be more descriptive.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:31, Blogger James B. said...

Also, can you show me one "lie" in LC?

Check out the top post. I have more than 40.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:40, Blogger Alex said...

Really BG. What exactly is it that you dislike about her? I've yet to see any outright lies or distortions on either her own site, or the Hot Air site. So unlike the Loosers, at least she's honest. She may be a wee-bit overzealous, but I can't really blame her for getting overexcited when faced with the stupidity of the people and issues that she talks about.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:42, Blogger debunking911 said...

We're expected to take these conspiracy theorist seriously??? Maybe when they produce evidence that isn't laughable.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:45, Blogger Killtown said...

Lie:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


So how were those "lies" compared to just being inaccurate?

Why is it if a CT gets something wrong it's automatically considered a "lie"?

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:47, Blogger Killtown said...

debunking911, see my 'smoking guns' page.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:52, Blogger Alex said...

So how were those "lies" compared to just being inaccurate?

Why is it if a CT gets something wrong it's automatically considered a "lie"?


When you misquote someone, it's pretty clear what your motives were. For instance, if you were to read an article where I say:

"Some people want you to beleive that the towers collapsed because of explosive charges. Nothing could be further from the truth."

And then you turn around and in your video say:

"Alex was quoted as saying 'The towers collapsed because of explosive charges'".

You are deliberately twisting my words to make it appear as if I were saying the exact opposite of what I actually said. While you may be repeating my exact words, you're deliberately taking them out of context in order to suggest I said something completely different. THAT is a lie. LC does that numerous times.

That's only one example ofcourse, and on obvious one. Most of the errors in LC really ARE due to honest mistakes (lack of intelligence and common sense). But it's quite obvious at several points that the authors are being deliberately dishonest. In other words, they're lying.

debunking911, see my 'smoking guns' page.

It's more of a dribbling water-pistol.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:53, Blogger James B. said...

Why is it if a CT gets something wrong it's automatically considered a "lie"?

Damn, they sure manage to make a lot of "mistakes" in support of their theories.

I asked earlier on 2 different posts here, for the CTs to point out similar lies and distortions here on SLC, the viewer's guide, and 911 Myths. I didn't get a single example in response.

I am sure you give Bush the same leeway regarding his "lies" about Iraqi WMD.

 
At 10 July, 2006 12:53, Blogger Unknown said...

Our Favorite Guy (Jim Fetzer) highlighted here:

Better Bad News: SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH USE UNPATRIOTIC SCIENCE TO TEST EVIDENCE OF AN INSIDE JOB.

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:00, Blogger Unknown said...

Alex,

About Coulter:

Calling for internment camps of Muslims is one her most infamous crimes.

If she understood the truth about 9/11, I imagine she would be a passionate advocate and much more sane. The fact is she is either duped or a knowing agent for the lies of 9/11, and it seems like that's just the start of basis for positions that I find indefensable.

For example, you can think OBL was behind 9/11 and still disagree with the bloody mess we are responsible for in Iraq.

Coulter is anywhere as bad as, say, Tammy Bruce, but Coulter's worldview seems to coincide to a great degree.

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:02, Blogger Unknown said...

Meant to say:

Colter isn't.... above

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:03, Blogger James B. said...

What does this have to do with Ann Coulter?

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:17, Blogger Unknown said...

Darn it,

I meant Malkin, not Coulter. My Bad.

Malkin has more brains and is more articulate than Coulter. Overall they seem to serve the same purpose.

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:30, Blogger Unknown said...

Here's another example of Malkin:
Feminist blames “Hadji Girl” for rape/murder in Iraq

This is the culture war making so-called honest right wing?.

This isn't conservatism. This isn't decency. This is flat out hate speech recklessly demonizing a groups (feminist) which is considered a political (and possibly a cultural) oppenent.

This is on the level of Rush L, and use of the word femi-Nazi. Rhetoric on this level is not appealing to the best in the populace, you have to admit.

I don't want our government to be influenced massively by hard core so-called feminists. However, this approach of winner take all Republican scorced-earth tactics insures a bloody battle-field, not a working democracy.

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:41, Blogger Unknown said...

More about Malkin

 
At 10 July, 2006 13:49, Blogger undense said...

bg,

You occasionally whine about Pat and James supposedly posting "hit pieces" on CT nuts, then you do your best to malign Malkin in this comments section.

Hypocrite much?

 
At 10 July, 2006 14:30, Blogger Unknown said...

undense said,

Whether I "whine" is debatable.

"Hit" pieces aren't intrinsically bad things.

If one isn't outraged by lies, and forceful in defending the truth, what kind of human are you.

The problem is with untrue hit pieces (e.g. Popular Mechanics, other articles that Pat/James have posted or link to.).

 
At 10 July, 2006 14:35, Blogger undense said...

"Untrue hits pieces."

You mean the articles you don't like because they expose the lies of the CTs? Then the CTs go on to try to disprove the PM piece by creating a lie of their own concerning Chertoff.

 
At 10 July, 2006 14:37, Blogger Abby Scott said...

I'd love to see where the lies are in the popular mechanics article.

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:00, Blogger Unknown said...

Abby,

Have you really not been given the website that explains why the Popular Mech piece was a hit pieces based on lies and manipulation? I'll be glad to post it again here.

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:05, Blogger Unknown said...

Here's it is:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:16, Blogger Pat said...

BG, Malkin was not calling for internment of Muslims with In Defense of Internment. And the post about the feminist claiming that Hajii Girl caused a rape and murder was by Allahpundit and not Mrs M (and was accurate as far as I can see). That Orcinus found Unhinged to be a little light is not surprising; folks seldom find books that mock their worldview very entertaining or amusing.

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:24, Blogger default.xbe said...

ive read that article before, and it doesnt "debunk" anything, for the most part it simply claims that PM attacked a bunch of strawmen that "no one believes" (such as flight 175 windows, 16 foot hole, pods on the planes) which you will actually find that many people (especially loosers) DO believe

an example of this articles own distortion follows:

It then dismisses this 'claim' with the following sweeping 'fact':

In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.

This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!

From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.


however this fails to note that these scrambles were not over north america (as the PM article clearly states, only 1 was over north america) the others were outside the US and canada (which is where NORAD did most of its watching pre-9/11)

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:27, Blogger Abby Scott said...

I also noticed that much of the response essay's frustrations were in terms of "straw men".

Considering the wide array of statements made by CTers, it would be actually difficult to come up with a strawman, or something that CTers don't believe.

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:28, Blogger undense said...

LOL @ bg,

Before he even posted a link I was thinking that the response from bg was not going to adress anything the article actually says, but a lament about what the article doesn't say.

Sure enough. They go on about not mentioning the "put options" (already debunked elsewhere), what they phrase as "complicit behavior", and "obstruction of justice", (both are which are simply specious allegations and not any sort of proof) just to name a few of their strawmen beefs.

Then they go on to try to claim that the pods were REAL.

After that I couldn't read any further due to the tears of laughter at such a hackish attempt of debunking.

Try again bg.

 
At 10 July, 2006 15:58, Blogger Unknown said...

abby,

I'm amazed by the popular technique that is used all over the internet... "the old I couldn't read any further", or with respect to 911 Eyewitness video: I couldn't watch any further.... this is possibly one of the more dishonest debating techniques that exists. I don't know who would give you any credibility as having been honest when you refuse to discuss the details of the material presented.

The link I provided does point out specific lies, and you don't show the honor to admit the truth.

 
At 10 July, 2006 16:00, Blogger James B. said...

Here the article cites the claim on reopen911.org that the hole in the Pentagon was "only 16ft. across," and mentions French author Thierry Meyssan, who helped to spawn the "no-757-crash theory", the subject of my earlier essay. The article again implies that this idea is gospel among 9/11 skeptics, giving no clue that there is controversy about the issue in 9/11 skeptics circles, and that many consider this claim that no jetliner hit the Pentagon a big distraction. The page ERROR: The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole and others by 9/11 skeptics have long debunked Meyssan's wildly inaccurate description of a 16-foot-diameter entry hole.


Are you using this article to argue against us, or Killtown?

 
At 10 July, 2006 16:05, Blogger Unknown said...

Abby,

Do you want more proof of the story of 9/11 being suppressed and mis-represented in the 9/11 Commission Report, in the press, in this blog.

Take a look at the raw testimony about explosion and the WTC towers:

9/11 Transcripts and Police Reports

 
At 10 July, 2006 16:09, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Explosions again?

Why in the world would we not expect explosions? It would be odd if NO ONE heard explosions.

I feel like a broken record with this one.

 
At 10 July, 2006 16:25, Blogger default.xbe said...

i just read the article for a third time, have yet to find it pointing out any lies, but ehres soem stuff to look at

Intact Windows
Here the article misrepresents an argument by skeptics of the official account of Flight 77's crash by stating that the issue is intact windows "near the impact area," when the skeptics point to unbroken windows in the trajectory of portions of the Boeing 757.


notice 911research doesnt link to any pictures or sources, simply has you take their word that there were unbroken windows where there shouldnt have been

Indian Lake
The article devotes this point to the confetti seen over Indian Lake, which is about two miles from the main crash site. It explains that this distance is "easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the blast."


this doesnt even attempt to debunk the point, it just quotes it, as if to imply the claim is so rediculous it doesnt need debunking, but 2 miles really isnt that far away when your going 500mph

PM delivers its closing ad hominem attack on skeptics in the voice of Ed Jacoby:

I summarily dismiss [allegations that Gibney shot down Flight 93] because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at the time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes -- it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there.


how is this even an attack? yes, ed jacoby is disgusted that peopel would imply Lt Col gibney would shoot down a civilian aircraft, i would be disgusted too (and i am)

 
At 10 July, 2006 17:21, Blogger shawn said...

So how were those "lies" compared to just being inaccurate?

When you know something is inaccurate (which the makers of loose Change must've known, unless they're braindead) and you present it as if it were true, you are lying.

 
At 10 July, 2006 17:23, Blogger shawn said...

Oh, and the only hit-piece I've seen on either side is the "debunking" of Popular Mechanic's debunking (which I, in turn, debunked in one of these threads).

 
At 10 July, 2006 18:35, Blogger Alex said...

BG:

This is flat out hate speech recklessly demonizing a groups (feminist) which is considered a political (and possibly a cultural) oppenent.

I don't see how. Pleas point out a passage of that article which is "demonizing" any group.

And, as has been pointed out to you. Michelle Malkin never advocated internment camps for Muslims. What she DID say (roughly) is that she understands why Japanese Americans were interred during WW2, and that it's pointless to judge that action by 21st century standards. Which she's absolutely right about. In hindsight it was a horrible thing to do, but things often tend to look different in hindsight.

If you're confusing Malkin with Coulter, it's no wonder you're so biased against her. I'm deffinitely not a fan of Coulter.

 
At 10 July, 2006 20:35, Blogger debunking911 said...

As I said, when you have something which isn't laughable.

 
At 11 July, 2006 08:48, Blogger Unknown said...

alex,

With respect to Malkin:

I don't know the realationship between Malkin and Allahpundit. His posts on her site seem to go over the line toward hate speech more than Malkin's.

 
At 11 July, 2006 08:59, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11 July, 2006 09:20, Blogger Unknown said...

Abby, and everyone that have taken issues with comments I've made here.

I want to give you credit for some of your points, and your general remarks being factual, and on topic. I am able to see 9/11 and other issues from your view point. I acknowledge that, based on our "back and forth" here, I haven't brought forward new or convincing evidence that has the power to change many minds. I think the "truth", if it is pursued and becomes known will bare out my skepticism.

I once again say that my goal is awareness of the questions of 9/11, with the idea that an official investigation to get at the heart of the matter.

I say the above because I don't see myself having time this week to address all the legitimate claims / questions that you have raised in this thread.

 
At 11 July, 2006 10:33, Blogger James B. said...

I don't know the realationship between Malkin and Allahpundit. His posts on her site seem to go over the line toward hate speech more than Malkin's.


You are just mad because he likes Screw Loose Change. You are accusing most of the US government as being part of a secret cabal to murder thousands of Americans and Iraqis, sounds like hate speech to me.

 
At 11 July, 2006 11:37, Blogger Unknown said...

James,

I know we have honest differences.

However, you are simply on the wrong track when you charge that I'm against allahpundit due to his stance on screwloosechange.

I respect that anyone who thinks 9/11 truth and Loose Change, the movie is a bunch of hookum is going to like this blog.

 
At 11 July, 2006 11:38, Blogger Unknown said...

James,

If, you were kidding me, you should put a little smiley face or something....

 
At 11 July, 2006 17:09, Blogger shawn said...

Is speaking out against a religion that preaches hate and intolerance hate speech?

You should join CAIR with that atttitude.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home