Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Boy, "Loose Change" is a real piece of poo.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 03:04 PM
Original message
Boy, "Loose Change" is a real piece of poo.
I watched the movie and could tell, from the get go, that it was filled with a lot of bullshit. It reminded me of one of the Nostradamus movies or, perhaps, a Noah's Arc(in search of?) movie I saw as a child. Lots of "questions" and lots of half truths spun in to fact......

But this guy..Mark Roberts.. http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html ... really tears Loose Change a new asshole. The Loose Change guys should be ashamed of themselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
May, 2006
This guide is meant to be a companion to, not a substitute for, the video itself. For one thing, I had to greatly reduce the resolution of the video screenshots in this document in order to keep the file size manageable. The video looks a lot better. "Loose Change Second Edition" is available as a free bittorrent download, as a Google Video stream, and for purchase from the Loose Change website. The creators of Loose Change also have an internet forum where you can discuss the video and 9/11 conspiracy-related issues. I encourage you to sign up there and let them know how you feel about their efforts. Fittingly, this is the second edition of this critique. The first was done in six long nights, because I wanted to hand copies of it to the creators of "Loose Change" when they were in New York to protest the premiere of the movie "United 93" on April 25, 2006. Because that version was written in the heat of the moment, it contained more obvious anger and sarcasm directed towards the creators of Loose Change. That anger hasn't abated, but cooler heads than mine have convinced me that cutting down on the "cutting" remarks should help me get my points across more effectively.

------------------------------------------------
I have incorporated additions and deletions suggested by several people who read the first draft. I am especially indebted to Mike at 911myths.com, who took the time, unsolicited, to suggest additions and corrections. I think his site is by far the best source on the internet for evenhanded examination of controversial issues surrounding the terrorist attacks.

The comments and opinions in red on these pages are mine only and do not represent the opinions of the creators of "Loose Change" or Louder Than Words, LLC. I am not supported by, and do not represent, any group or organization, and I have no political or financial interest in these matters.

I put this document together for several reasons:

1. To promote understanding of the facts about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and to discourage relying on rumor and conjecture when searching for the "truth."

2. Because I believe that "Loose Change" is an influential introduction for many people to 9/11 conspiracy issues.

3. To encourage respect for the victims, living and dead, of the 9/11 attacks.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also at the end of this document is a summary of the numbers and types of errors that I found in "Loose Change." Not every error was noted or commented on in the transcription section, nor does every comment I made there count as an "error" in my tallies. And no, I didn't count typos in the transcript as errors. To keep you from jumping to the end, I'll tell you now that in this hour and twenty-minute video I counted 81 errors of fact (statements like "1+1 = 3"). In addition, I counted 345 instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs. And that's only counting errors of commission. The errors of omission are more serious. (Note: I have turned up more errors while doing this update, but I find it too depressing to count them.)I welcome any well-researched corrections to my statements and will incorporate them into this document (after checking them out!). Submit constructive criticism to itmatters@mail.com .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Most of us do know that there are glaring errors in LC
So, what is the point of this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Just thought I would share I guess.
I didn't know the fact that they are full of shit was so well known. :shrug:

I watched the Loose change guys debate the Popular Mechanics people. The LC kids acted like complete assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. "Glaring errors"??---No, deliberate lies for fame and money.
Are you sure this is the -only- conspiracist tract that is not full of "glaring errors"????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Such as, for instance?
Let me guess--their collapse times are off by a shocking 1.2 seconds according to Professor Schillingshaver of MIT?

Sorry, not buying it. Next? :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. no one ever really answers that.eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You don't think 1.2 seconds is a big deal?
Edited on Sat Sep-16-06 08:58 PM by Kingshakabobo
It kinda kills their free fall theory, doesn't it? How hard is it to time a video correctly? Especially when seconds(literally)count???

Here:

LC: But what we do know, is that the 757 has two Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy

Article: False. Flight 77 had Rolls-Royce engines.


LC: He (notorious con-man Karl W.B. Schwarz) believes that the piece is a JT8D Turbojet Engine from the US Air Force A3 scottwarrior

Article: (that's A-3 Skywarrior )"Little Rock, we have a problem!" First, the piece is not an engine. Second, Skywarriors don't use JT8D engines, and never did.

LC: The piece in the FEMA photo is the front shaft bearing housing

Article: Wrong. This is the front shaft bearing housing of a JT8D, from your video.

Article: Remember, he's talking about the JT8D engine. Which happens to be by far the most commonly used jet engine in history, and is used in the 707, 727, 737, DC-9, MD-83, etc. etc. Hell, it seems like two of the only planes that DON'T use it are the 757 and the A-3.

Article: Look at the photo below Sure looks like that part could be from a 757 engine, and it's clearly not the part that "Loose Change" says it is. It only took a few minutes to get this info, and a few more to put the pictures together and stick letters on them.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Did you actually open the link in the OP. Evidently not.
If you are actually seeking Truth, you probably ought to look at the opinions of people who disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. That's what I'm talking about.
The basic argument appears to be, "Explanations? We don't need no stinkin' explanations!"

For example, Section III, covering the WTC demolitions, accounts for widely reported the secondary explosions this way:

I've never been surprised in the least by these reports. Why wouldn't there be secondary explosions, and things that sound like explosions or bombs, in a disaster of that type and magnitude in buildings of that type and magnitude? I have yet to hear from a CTist why that's surprising.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

Funny as hell, but not exactly persuasive. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
50. It's a perfectly sound argument.
Follow the logic, please. If you can.

Loud noises were heard. There are many possible explanations. ONE explanation is that there were planted explosives.

BUT, there is no -other- evidence of planted explosives and there are -many- other explanations for the loud noises.

AND, the noises are heard at times and places that make no sense for a controlled demolition.

AND, the other possible sources of loud noises are much more probable than explosives, and, in fact, inevitable in a collapsing skyscraper.

HENCE, the evidence is without merit.

QED.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. Post # 14 gives a list of bonafide CT sites that skewer LC. READ THEM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's stylish propaganda.
Here's some more impressive propaganda debunking:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. "ConspiraToon (c)": It's Girls Gone Wild for Conspiracists
Girls Gone Wild probably makes more money, but Loose Change seems to be raking in quite a lot of change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. I like the recut version more

it finally has some of the war games and other important stuff.

Way too much on the pentagon, they could have left that completely out, like Jones does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. so a couple college kids made a video and it isn't perfect, what's
the 911 Commission's excuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. "perfect" isn't the issue. Deliberate, outrageous lies are the issue.
Edited on Sat Sep-16-06 09:09 PM by MervinFerd
Making money by putting together a deliberately false narrative about a horrific tragedy...
is about as low as you can get.

College students or not.


And FWIW, EXACTLY WHAT would be the comparable errors in the 9/11 Commission Report? (I've already heard it's all wrong. WHAT are the errors? Which statements conflict with publicly available information? What experts have refuted it?--real experts, not that Dr. Jones clown or that UL water quality expert.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. for example?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. See post #10
Also, they deliberately mis-state Hanjour's pilot qualifications while overstating the difficulty of 330 degree turn he executed.

LC: Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH

This is an outright lie. The turn was executed at normal airspeed. Hanjour didn't over-speed the aircraft until the last 30 seconds on his final straight-in approach from about 2000ft altitude.


Misinformation pure and simple: I think that's why a good number of people on these threads aren't aware that Hanjour was a licensed commercial pilot with simulator training in jets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Hanjour was a joke, like all the other patsies

The Fourth Pilot: Hani Hanjour
Hani Hanjour, from Ta'if, Saudi Arabia, first came to the United States in 1991
to study at the Center for English as a Second Language at the University of
Arizona. He seems to have been a rigorously observant Muslim.According to
his older brother, Hani Hanjour went to Afghanistan for the first time in the
late 1980s, as a teenager, to participate in the jihad and, because the Soviets had
already withdrawn, worked for a relief agency there.
55
In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,
after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in
Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them
before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then,
along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there
in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private
ilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot
certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.
He then returned to Saudi Arabia.
56
Hanjour reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after
returning home, but was rejected.
He stayed home for a while and then told
his family he was going to the United Arab Emirates to work for an airline.
Where Hanjour actually traveled during this time period is unknown. It is pos-
sible he went to the training camps in Afghanistan.


Jarrah and Hanjour also received additional training and practice flights in
the early summer.A few days before departing on his cross-country test flight,
Jarrah flew from Fort Lauderdale to Philadelphia, where he trained at Hort-
man Aviation and asked to fly the Hudson Corridor, a low-altitude "hallway"
along the Hudson River that passes New York landmarks like the World Trade
Center. Heavy traffic in the area can make the corridor a dangerous route for
an inexperienced pilot. Because Hortman deemed Jarrah unfit to fly solo, he
could fly this route only with an instructor.
134
Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time,
at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiv-
ing ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi. Hanjour flew
the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of
what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills.
Shortly thereafter, Hanjour
switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented
small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance
on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from
Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland,
a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evi-
dence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight sim-
ulator training earlier in June.
from the 911 whitewash report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tenseconds Donating Member (237 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. ?
source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Source of what?
Here's the NTSB animation from flight recorder data of the final minutes including the turn. Watch it. He didn't reach dangerously high speed until the very end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0

The fact that he(Hanjour) had a commercial license and simulator training is in the 9/11 commission report. You wouldn't know it to listen to people on these threads since they are content to regurgitate the same pablum that Hanjour couldn't fly anything - not even a Cessna.



This is the first thing that showed up on google:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/...

>>>Five years elapsed. Hanjour became intrigued with aviation. He returned to the United States to scout flying schools and study English. In 1997, he moved to the Valley and began training in earnest at several schools. He earned a pilot's license and received a commercial Federal Aviation Administration certificate in 1998.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Read the link in the OP.
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 06:36 PM by MervinFerd
Or a bunch of other sites, including major CT sites (see post 14 for a list).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-16-06 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
14. The original debunking of loose change predates this...
Edited on Sat Sep-16-06 09:48 PM by JackRiddler
and is by 9/11 skeptics:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.h...

Much of what Roberts and other anti-LC sites address was originally brought up by Mark Green, Mark Robinowitz, Jim Hoffman and other 9/11 skeptics.

Here is a complete, step by step critique of LC2 by Jim Hoffman:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index....

Great work.

Since LC/LC2 does not address the best evidence for 9/11 as inside job - in fact, does not for the most part deal with the best evidence for its claim of demolition - and since the case for inside job predates LC/LC2 by three years, all the "debunking" directed at it is irrelevant to the main question of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

LC=sideshow of convenience for the Official Conspiracy crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. Did OCTists make LooseChange popular?
Edited on Mon Sep-18-06 12:41 AM by greyl
"LC=sideshow of convenience for the Official Conspiracy crowd."

That statement reminds me of wishful thinking. At some point one needs to accept the fact that the film was produced by people who don't believe the OCT, and that it has been watched millions of times by those who don't believe the OCT, and that people who believe in the genral OCT are those that are doing the most work today debunking that piece of shit movie. I'd that you've seen the apologists for LooseChange, and none of them are from the Official Conspiracy Crowd.

I know the point you're trying to make is that LooseChange is an easy target for ridicule, but I think you need to realize that the vast majority of CTists don't understand that. Why is that?
Imo, it's because people who are predisposed to a Conspiracist Worldwiew are less likely to look at movies/materials like Loose Change with a critical mind. They begin with a conclusion and apply generous amounts of Confirmation Bias to any and all information in order to support their conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Do any OCT'ers agree with FDR that nothing happens in politics by

accident - that it's all planned?

Don't bother trying to fool anyone into thinking you've just "debunked" something in the event that the actual quote says "coincidence", not accident, and "by design", not planned. I'm not trying to discourage you from consulting wikipedia for the actual quote. In fact, I'd urge you to do so and even include it in a response.

Oh, and one more thing: YES, "false flag" terror operations DO fall into the category of "politics", regardless of whether FDR was specifically referring to the NOT-surprise attack on Pearl Harbor whenever he made the statement.

"Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in the event one of the "soldiers" finds some other excuse to avoid addressing the substance of the above quote from President Roosevelt. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

Proceed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Confirmation bias...
Works for nearly everyone, as you regularly demonstrate. People who are predisposed to support the OCT are more likely to look at LC with "a critical mind," while skipping cooperativeresearch.org or the works of Nafeez Ahmed - or, for that matter, Jim Hoffman on the demolitions side.

I submit LC would not have achieved its relative hegemony without the media coverage confirming its "importance." While it was still at a fraction of its current hit total, it was already adopted as the target of choice for the debunkers, who spread it far and wide. ("So this is what PM wishes to attack? Good, I'll take a look at it.")

Where's the major media outcry (or coverage) against 9/11 Press for Truth - a broadcast-quality, original documentary made by established journalists with the support and participation of the Jersey widows who otherwise garner major media? This is the dog that did not bark.

The majority of those who call themselves 9/11 truth movement members do not subscribe to LC, and a survey of the many sites will show a plurality in its favor at best.

But isn't the popularity of a given idea ultimately irrelevant to a true skeptic? One has to deal with the totality of available facts and possibilities, not the preferred strawman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. Is public debunking of 9/11 bullshit a good thing or not?
On the one hand, you expect credit to be given to the CT side for being the first to debunk Loose Change, and on the other you want to be able to criticize those who publicly debunk Loose Change(and others). Those premises contradict each other.

If you want to claim that media coverage is responsible for the millions of downloads of LooseChange, you'll have to include the 9/11 Press for Truth website in your list of those to blame because they linked to it as recently as 6 weeks ago.

I first heard of LooseChange in this forum from CTists who were spreading the link, and I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of those who believe Loose Change heard about from someone else who believed it.

For whatever reason, the guys you link to at 911research.wtc7.net didn't have enough influence, nor have they kept up with every new version of LooseChange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. It is a question of how one chooses to devote one's limited time
For example, a TV station can use a half-hour detail the lies used to justify the Iraq war. Or it can choose to spend a half hour reviewing how Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica, or doing some more Natalie Holloway. These examples bespeak something of the relative importance of the government's lies about 9/11, as opposed to LC2's fallacies (whether intentional or not) about 9/11. (Except that LC2's fallacies have not killed anyone, not even Natalie Holloway, whereas even the generally discredited conspiracy theory that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 continues to result in many tens of thousands of deaths.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-19-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. As with most things.
I think you only read the subject line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
18. It's remarkably what panic one film by some young people can
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 06:28 PM by mogster
create ;-)

Imagine, here you have all media, the US government, the world media, the worlds governments - all fronting the same story about what happened that day. And you, of course.
Then comes these kids, makes a video asking questions about the attack and the result is:



Panic in the US govt, panic in the US media, panic in the world media, panic among the worlds governments. And you're panicking too, lol.

Never mind the laws of physics or common sense. Have some faith, huh?
One second read, there's one word in your post that's true:
asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Panic, NO. Outrage at blatant commercial exploitation and deception, yes.
Putting together a mass of deliberate lies and distortions about a horrible tragedy, just to gain fame and fortune....

is about as low as you can get.

Well, not quite, but pretty damn low.

Leave these guys, and their Paranoid Conspiracies to the Wingers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Sure, bro
No one has ever exploited this tragedy for their own purpose, huh? ;-)

Well, just be sure to get rid of all the evil, Merv.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Many have exploited this tragedy. Notably Mr. Bush. That doesn't make.....
it OK. Does it?

The Loose Change "kids" are petty con-men using people's fear and grief to....

MAKE MONEY!

What's wrong with saying that?

Is everyone who advocates ANY conspiracy just fine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Everything is wrong with saying that
As they clearly wasn't making Loose Change to make money.

So, the so-called debunking people in the OP is also exploiting the tragedy to make money, then? :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. You don't make money repeating the Conventional Wisdom.
I get a good stipend as a Paid Shill, of course. But not enough to get rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. I thought it's free on video.google.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Don't be naive. DVDs are for sale. Speaker fees ain't cheap. Girls......
by the dozens.

It's a big con job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I thought they gave 10.000 DVD's away for free
at ground zero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Shameless publicity stunt.
Don't be naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. What is your point?
A doing nothing

B worshipping bush


What should they do instead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. C. Oppose Bush with rational argument and objective fact.
You seem to be trapped in the Conspiracist False Dichotomy.

Either: Accept all Gov't statements as TRUE.

Or: Accept all ConspiraToons as TRUE.

Ain't that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Govt won't help you
And you could have impeached BUSH 20 times for what he has done.

I'm reading a lot and the picture is not looking good.


I think you are trapped in the false Democrats are good Republicans are bad dichotomy.

If we had good Democrats the president wouldn't be in office for vote fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Impeach Bush!
Edited on Wed Sep-20-06 06:34 PM by MervinFerd
There's plenty of stuff in the public record, uncontestable facts.

But, we need our wits about us. And, solid evidence and facts and logic. And to win the next election.

Fraudulent films hawking fantastic imaginary plots will not help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. And Cheney for President ?
C'mon everybody knows that Bush is not the president, he has his ear-piece and
probably started to drink and take cocaine again.

Congress has no power and people who really care get diebold out, like Cynthia McKinney.

The Dollar is going to fall on its nose.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename...

One reason the crazies want to attack Iran is the switch to Euro which could increase a global crash.

Cyndi Sheehan won't stop a war with Iran, only if you expose them for what they are, namely criminals, that could help and prevent a disaster.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Impeach Bush!...........and Cheney!!!!
Seriously, this is a flaw in the Constitution. The only immediate fix would be to impeach both the Pres and VP.

The rest of it:

Diebold or not, McKinney lost decisively for the good reason that she did and said ridiculous things. Fortunately, she will be replaced by a Democrat. Conspiracy Theories ain't the way to get elected.

Switching to the Euro? Dunno, never heard of that before. I think we should Go Metric first.

And, if you want to expose them as criminals, go after the crimes they actually committed, and there are plenty. Hint: holographic airplanes and invisible elves will be difficult to prove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. We need more Liebermans in this world. I agree eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Liebermann?? Liebermann?? Who the F--k mentioned Liebermann?
Belief in Paranoid Conspiracy Theories (ConspiraToons) has as much relation to progressive or radical politics as belief in the Tooth Fairy. Or skepticism that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.

How many times have you read "The Communist Manifesto"??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FoxOnTheRun Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. I don't read illuminati writings


Democrat in means everything is OK?

You need people who are fresh, not corrupted(or not to buy) and who want to change something and not just get along.

Ties to oil, pharma or military industrial complex are also a problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-21-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Democrats corrupt? Taking money form Corporations?? NO!!!!!
Of course they are corrupt. Or would be, if they were in power. BUT, they won't be doing the will of Christian fundamentalists and NeoCon nuts.

Dems do and -will do- the will of corporations. But perhaps the more enlightened self-interest of the corporations, which does not include unnecessary wars incompetently executed wars, enormous gov't debt and neglect of essential gov't services.

Right at the moment, we need Dems in power, just to preserve the -pretence- of constitutional gov't. And to put some control on this literally insane Bush administration.

Communist Manifesto and Illuminati? You've got me there.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.ht...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Hey, you are the one with the problem...not me.
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 10:11 PM by Kingshakabobo
It's funny how kooks such as yourselves can't discuss these issues without name calling. Yes, I called you a kook - sorry. That's the only explanation for taking a thread on an internet chat board and turning it in to a personal insult. Panic? I'm not the one one with my panties in a twist over a thread. Projection, thy name is mogster.

Here's a novel idea....why don't you try to discuss the issues?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Where's the insult in my post?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Maybe I misread the "asshole" comment as being directed at me?
Maybe it was directed at the author of the article?

The mildly insulting "panic" comment I can live with even though I throughly reject that premise. I find it silly and maybe even filled with projection. It reminds me of my freeper co-worker - Any time he gets backed in to a corner, he projects his silly reasoning that I can't see issues clearly due to my "hatred of bush." The funny thing is, he absolutely hates Clinton(he's a ruby ridge/waco/janet reno type of rethug)......and he hate Muslims because of what they did to his grandparents in Grece/Crete..........go figure - a guy who sees red at the mere mention of Clinton is projecting a hate motive on a guy that wasn't really paying attention until Bush started a war based on obvious lies and misrepresentation.................then I started to peel back the layers......."If you are not outraged you are not paying attention"....truer words were never spoken.


.......which leads me to these threads

I never really had occasion to spend any time on these 911 threads until recently. I was drawn here when I took notice of some glaring mis-statements regarding the pentagon flight. I've been private pilot for over 20 years so I felt I had a little insight regarding the aviation pieces of the pentagon flight - namely the gross overstatement by LC and some posters on these threads of the skill levels required to execute the "330 degree turn and crash." Once I dug a little deeper I started peeling back layers of mis-statements and bullshit people have been repeating.....for instance, I think a lot of posters on this thread don't realize Hanjour was a licensed commercial pilot with jet simulator training.......that's just the tip of the iceberg - IMHO.

Anyway.....

I must admit, these threads are little habit forming......Also, part of me is motivated by the name calling and "provocateur"/"paid government shill" accusations against the, so called, "OCTers." I find them laughable and they only make me want to post more often. I funny that way - I don't back down to silly name calling.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-18-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Awright, Kingshakabobo
I just wanted to point out the over use of the ass and poo angle in this thread :-)
Let's keep both scepticism and free thought alive by refraining from insults, I agree. Sorry 'bout it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC