Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
left  Loose change, 2nd edition recut.   Options  V right
Light
post Feb 27 2008, 09:21 AM
Post #16


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



QUOTE(Nedak @ Feb 27 2008, 08:34 AM) *

Watch the Loose Change documentary before you comment. The first two are obviously support bias opinions but the third seemed less bias and states new facts.



Thing is, they've queered their pitch by spewing such palpable bullshit in the first 2 editions. The third may seem less biased, imo it's because they've learned how to present a case. Loose Change is an exercise in money making and ego stroking, not a crusade for truth.

QUOTE(Nedak @ Feb 27 2008, 08:34 AM) *

quoting on Light's little picture

lmao that's terrible!


Heh. Isn't it though?


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Feb 27 2008, 09:35 PM
Post #17


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE
Thing is, they've queered their pitch by spewing such palpable bullshit in the first 2 editions. The third may seem less biased, imo it's because they've learned how to present a case. Loose Change is an exercise in money making and ego stroking, not a crusade for truth.


I guess that's true. But I did do some research and a lot of what they were saying was right. The jet fuel burn, and many other things. Zeitgiest seemed like it had a lot of their facts straight as well.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light
post Feb 28 2008, 03:05 AM
Post #18


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



QUOTE(Nedak @ Feb 27 2008, 09:35 PM) *

I guess that's true. But I did do some research and a lot of what they were saying was right. The jet fuel burn, and many other things. Zeitgiest seemed like it had a lot of their facts straight as well.


Just out of interest, what of theirs that they were saying was right? I ask because the facts omitted from something can make more difference than the facts they've put on show.


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Feb 28 2008, 09:09 AM
Post #19


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE
Just out of interest, what of theirs that they were saying was right? I ask because the facts omitted from something can make more difference than the facts they've put on show


That we found one of the hijacker's passports outside of one of the towers, Jet Fuel can't melt steel. Also, that a few of the hijackers are even alive. I don't know all of them, for I'd have to scan the whole movie.

If you're talking about Zeitgeist, the whole beginning of that movie was correct referring to the god(s), the middle was very well laid out and seemed to have very correct facts with the 9/11 conspiracy, little questioning on the quote they threw out their that somehow matched George Bush to Hitler, and the last seemed very legit. I looked up some of the facts, and they were completely legit facts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light
post Feb 28 2008, 09:24 AM
Post #20


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



QUOTE(Nedak @ Feb 28 2008, 09:09 AM) *

That we found one of the hijacker's passports outside of one of the towers, Jet Fuel can't melt steel. Also, that a few of the hijackers are even alive. I don't know all of them, for I'd have to scan the whole movie.


I think that refers to the "molten steel", for which there is no evidence whatsoever as to...well, as to what it is. It's a molten substance, sure. And although NIST says it was "molten metal", they offer no evidence as to why that may be.

If we're referring to the steel frame of WTC7 or the twin towers...no-one actually ever said it melted. The conspiraloons did, but no-one else has. The fused steel and concrete happened in the collapse, not cos of temperature.

Not heard the passports thing, but I have to say; I suspect it's more misdirection on the part of the grubby little opportunists behind the film. I'd be interested to know more though; I'll hunt that out.


QUOTE(Nedak @ Feb 28 2008, 09:09 AM) *

If you're talking about Zeitgeist, the whole beginning of that movie was correct referring to the god(s), the middle was very well laid out and seemed to have very correct facts with the 9/11 conspiracy, little questioning on the quote they threw out their that somehow matched George Bush to Hitler, and the last seemed very legit. I looked up some of the facts, and they were completely legit facts.


Yeah, well don't get me wrong; I won't knock something that points out the mythologising of Christ. But as I say; films like that rely too much on "the God of Gaps" (as per Richard Dawkins) for my liking.


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Feb 29 2008, 01:28 AM
Post #21


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



There's alot of arguments that run sideways to the debate that don't come up. For example, the Loose Change people are right in saying jet fuel can't melt steel. However, nobody on either side saying the steel melted, just that it got too soft to hold the weight. Basing the burden of proof on the metal liquefying is aiming higher than the truth, which coincidentally enough is what 9-11 conspiracy buffs are known for.

I also think the fact they have three different versions speaks volumes against them. Re-doing a movie implies something was wrong the first time, that's the whole reason why people hated the idea of a Star-Wars remake. And two remakes? You fucked up your own movie twice?

Finally, I once again need to say I don't get the need for all of this. I hate it when 9-11 pricks say, "What, do you blindly believe everything you see on network TV?". No asshole, I don't. But 9-11 was everywhere, every TV station, blog, and newspaper in America. Shit, do you know how much wool you'd need to pull over that many people's eyes? I don't know, but far more than any shadowy government/big-business gulag's got, I don't care how big and far-reaching their grasp supposedly is. Stop giving these cocksuckers more credit than they deserve, they couldn't hide corruption in the 2000 Florida elections while half the people there voted for Duchakis.

There's alot of arguments that run sideways to the debate that don't come up. For example, the Loose Change people are right in saying jet fuel can't melt steel. However, nobody on either side saying the steel melted, just that it got too soft to hold the weight. Basing the burden of proof on the metal liquefying is aiming higher than the truth, which coincidentally enough is what 9-11 conspiracy buffs are known for.

I also think the fact they have three different versions speaks volumes against them. Re-doing a movie implies something was wrong the first time, that's the whole reason why people hated the idea of a Star-Wars remake. And two remakes? You fucked up your own movie twice?

Finally, I once again need to say I don't get the need for all of this. I hate it when 9-11 pricks say, "What, do you blindly believe everything you see on network TV?". No asshole, I don't. But 9-11 was everywhere, every TV station, blog, and newspaper in America. Shit, do you know how much wool you'd need to pull over that many people's eyes? I don't know, but far more than any shadowy government/big-business gulag's got, I don't care how big and far-reaching their grasp supposedly is. Stop giving these cocksuckers more credit than they deserve, they couldn't hide corruption in the 2000 Florida elections while half the people there voted for Duchakis.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Feb 29 2008, 08:21 AM
Post #22


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



QUOTE
If we're referring to the steel frame of WTC7 or the twin towers...no-one actually ever said it melted. The conspiraloons did, but no-one else has. The fused steel and concrete happened in the collapse, not cos of temperature.

No, I watched on the History Channel a reenactment of 9-11 and I'm extremely positive they confirmed that. Also, in that reenactment it showed the floors falling in a free-fall, and there would still be a metal beam in the middle if it was suppose to fall that way. And there was none. Also, you can't say that the many Firemen and people that heard explosions in the basement before the plane even hit, are lying or trying to pull anything over your eyes.

QUOTE
Not heard the passports thing, but I have to say; I suspect it's more misdirection on the part of the grubby little opportunists behind the film. I'd be interested to know more though; I'll hunt that out.

In both Loose Change and Zeitgeist they both brought that up. They even had a picture of a man holding it.

QUOTE
they couldn't hide corruption in the 2000 Florida elections while half the people there voted for Duchakis.

They sure can hide it well though so Bush (and not Gore) can win a presidential election.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Feb 29 2008, 11:34 AM
Post #23


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



QUOTE(Nedak @ Feb 29 2008, 06:21 AM) *

They sure can hide it well though so Bush (and not Gore) can win a presidential election.


I posted twice. I'm a dumbass.

No, but that whole 2000 election thing's got me pissed now. I know, let it go, right? But the corruption of the election was so great it had to go up to the Supreme Court, and they sided with Bush (in their words, it was time to end partisan squabbling and work together to change the tone of American politics). We all know that worked out.

I'm not saying Bush doesn't get his way. Oh, he always wins out despite reality's contradictions of his policies. No, what I'm saying is that Bush doesn't ninja his way into policies, sneaking them by without anyone noticing. He does everything in broad daylight, bullying his way to get what he wants, fuck you if you don't agree. He always leaves behind a wave of pissed off people, no more than after the war and/or 2000 elections. So saying he convinced enough people to win in 2007 is not an end-all sentence, because now you want to make the leap from Bush committing the widest noticed corrupt election to Bush committing the largest conspiracy in the world. Even assuming the white house had the brains and balls to fake 9-11, what makes you think he wouldn't do it openly?

Remember, we're talking about a man who routinely goes on TV to advocate torture. Nuance is not his game.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nedak
post Feb 29 2008, 06:36 PM
Post #24


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,794
Joined: 18-December 07
Member No.: 441



I think the whole presidential elections are setup.

No matter what, those who are suppose to be in office will be put there.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Feb 29 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #25


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



Yeah, that's just the nature of the game. You can't have an application for the most powerful job in the world without some tenth-degree pricks showing up. Any job where someone can be fucked over will be taken over by someone who fucks others over. Even low-level managers are douches for this reason.

My point's just in how. At least most most greedy alpha-male power grabbers have the decency to do it behind closed doors. Bush is representative of the new way of fucking down the chain. There's something about the way he's so unapologetic, it's almost like he likes having the blood on his hands. Perhaps after being spoon-fed help his entire life he enjoys playing with something real. All I know is anyone who doesn't care that much, so much they are willing to go down in history as the worst, separates himself from your average shadowy corporate rulers.

Man, I say fuck way too much.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light
post Mar 3 2008, 02:53 AM
Post #26


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



[quote]No, I watched on the History Channel a reenactment of 9-11 and I'm extremely positive they confirmed that. Also, in that reenactment it showed the floors falling in a free-fall, and there would still be a metal beam in the middle if it was suppose to fall that way. And there was none. Also, you can't say that the many Firemen and people that heard explosions in the basement before the plane even hit, are lying or trying to pull anything over your eyes.[/quote]


Ah, the "Fireman said it was explosions" half truth so beloved of the Loose Change crowd. Oddly, they only offer selective quotations from the firemen. Like this one;

[quote]I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . [T]he lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out." Oral History of Battalion Chief Brian Dixon[/quote]

And yet, Loose Change always leaves out the lines following this, which read;

[quote]"Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.".[/quote]

Sometimes the Loose Change crowd edit within the quote; in this following one, the stuff in bold is what is missed out by the Loose Change lot in their literature;

[quote]"We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV." Oral History of Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick[/quote]


In fact, since we're looking at the FDNY quotes;

[quote]
heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down. Oral History of Craig Carlson[/quote]




Isn't he describing the beginning of the collapse?

[quote]
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.� Oral History of Karin Deshore[/quote]

She's describing the burst of flame that was seen at the beginnig of the collapse. Not completely surprising considering that the building was on fire. Where's the video evidence?

Oh, btw, can you describe the difference between the noise made by a concrete beam breaking under stress and a dynomite charge exploding?

The point is, these statements are selective used by the conspiraloon brigade to try and bolster their non-existent case. And, more to the point, if we were to assume that the noises that numerous people said "sound like explosions" were actually explosions...where's the video evidence to corroborate it?

[quote]
In both Loose Change and Zeitgeist they both brought that up. They even had a picture of a man holding it. [/quote]

Well, we've seen their standards of "proof" above, so I'm afraid unless there is some corroborating evidence...

[quote]
They sure can hide it well though so Bush (and not Gore) can win a presidential election.
[/quote]

So...you're saying that the simpletons who have made a mess of their entire time in office have the skills to pull off what must be the biggest act of misdirection in history, and arrange the bombing of a US building, but no-one has found out about it? No-one has any proof? Here's a thing; if the twin towers were bombed...where were the explosives? 2 dirty great planes smashed into the building; how did they avoid all the explosives that were allegedly there?



[edit] fucking quote function...


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Mar 4 2008, 02:04 AM
Post #27


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



They say it's not about that, it's about what can't be explained. I'm almost tempted to agree, but these people make it blatant that they have political biases influencing them. The truth is nothing close to 9-11 has ever happened before, so using an absence of knowledge excuse doesn't fly. All planes-hit-buildings theories are theoretical, and that makes nobody an "expert". With that being said, I will take the word of any structural designer over somebody who just, "unravels the mystery" by their lonesome.

Oh, and the fact that they cherry-pick their facts shows their flaws. Taking testimony from firefighters and editing it so it confirms the explosion theory is more than ignorance, it's lying. It's blatant unapologetic lying. That's like somebody saying you stabbed a midget just because you said, "I stabbed a midget, then I woke up from the dream."

That's a horrible example, but I'm tired. Let's see you try one better.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light
post Mar 4 2008, 03:26 AM
Post #28


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 24-November 06
Member No.: 9



I know what you're saying; the whole approach of conspiraloons is "I think this happened. Now prove me wrong!". Basically, they try and pick a non-disprovable point and build a mythology around it.

Which is, of course, ludicrous. A comparable situation to the current loon cant on 9/11 would run thus:

A man is found, dead. He has two bullet wounds. Something like 3 billion people saw him getting shot, twice. And a man has since appeared on TV admitting responsibility for the shooting.

The loons say he was poisoned. They say this because his face in death looks a bit like that of someone who'd been given poison. However, they have no proof of this. They can't explain who poisoned him, how the poison was introduced into his system, or even what the poison is. What's more, all the tests done so far have found no trace of poison in his system.

But the loons say "It's so self evident he was poisoned that we don't have to explain how he was poisoned. It's up to you to prove he wasn't."

And that, in a nutshell, is why I find conspiraloons so very very pathetic.


--------------------
Light's deeply tedious blog

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Mar 8 2008, 01:32 AM
Post #29


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



That's much better than mine. Seriously, midgets? What the fuck? Ooh, dutch oven...

Sorry, farted bad. Thankfully girlfriend isn't in here (and by girlfriend I mean girl I have sex on, in, and around). Now what was I saying? Ah yes, the, "prove me wrong" theory. I do want to stress it's important to doubt (not that I need to explain that...). There's nothing wrong with doubting government's role in things. The problem comes when you jump from theory to fact on a hunch. "Bush was involved" is a better point than, "Bush rigged the towers to blow/sent in robots/etc" (sub Bush for whomever you think is puppeteering him this week). There's enough room for doubt to support a vague idea of government involvement, and even then that's stretching it.
Personally I think of the 9-11 conspiracy theory creates kind of a Rorshack (is that spelled OK?) test. Your level of commitment shows how far you are willing to go to make Bush look a fool. It says something about you if you believe in MIHOP, or at least are so sure that you refuse to let other facts throw you from your pre-conceived notion. LIHOPs are more down to Earth, but even they rely on speculation. Personally I think it was more of a, "Mr. President, we're about to be attacked put down the Game Boy" conspiracy. I also think it a shame what people believe Bush is capable of when his actions were essentially held together with duct-tape.


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sunupu
post Mar 8 2008, 01:35 AM
Post #30


sacrosanct
**********

Group: Sacred Members
Posts: 2,842
Joined: 23-February 08
Member No.: 474



Ah shit, I forgot....

LIHOP: Let it happen on Purpose
MIHOP: Made it happen on Purpose

I'm believe the IHOP theory. You know, the International House Of Pancakes. Those flapjacks are too damn good, something's up...


--------------------
The best way to get over someone is to get under someone.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2017 - 06:33 PM
Skin created by Vanson Studios, © 2006 Sacred Cow Productions