Loose Change: compelling evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories or complete bullshít?

PullMyFinger!

Im halfway through watching this for the second time and while most of it makes for compelling viewing Ive heard it may be sensationalist bullshít in parts.

What Id like to know - from conspiracy theorists around here who know 9/11 inside out - is what they think is true on the documentary and what is pure fiction.

Your thoughts?

Nick_oliveri

OscarBravo posted this site in the other thread which claims to debunk (every quote and claim of ) loose change and is a skeptics viewer guide.

Im staying out of this now because i forsee more snide remarks from all sides which could esculate into personal abuse. And i was made feel like an idiot... . Which i probably deserved for getting into it in the first place.

Those claims are fairly big, and emotions on the subject will be enormous out of respect for the dead on 9/11. I think we should all leave it until it is shown that there is no two ways about it.

The other thread contains a lot of information on this subject.

oscarBravo

It reeks. Read the site Nick has linked. If there's anything in that site you think is factually incorrect, feel free to point it out and I'll debate it with you.

bonkey

PullMyFinger! wrote:

Your thoughts?

Its an enjoyable piece of pulp fiction that is sadly pimped by its authors as being somehow based on reality to a greater degree than (say) a movie like U-571.

jc

A Primal Nut

Whoever believes this should read this page. That stuff about the note in particular is nonsense and destroys any credibility Loose Change could have. Why would the government give away clues?

ttp://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

torinoblue

Embaressing stuff riddled with the same repeated errors that I am not going to argue about again.

I've heard there is a commentary which can be listened side by side with the movie which should be listened to, if you truly can listen to both sides of an argument.

Overall the Sept 11 2001 conspiracy theory makes no sense, in detail it makes evn less sense.

tunaman

Loose change is riddled with errors, which discredits all the real evidence.

Here is a genuine sceptics guide, unlike that other guide already posted, in which the author resorts to nearly every logical fallacy known to man, in a desperate attempt to stop people asking important questions.

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

The lack of response from the military that day is even more incriminating, when you realise just how early ATC became aware of each hijacking.

Flight 11 lost contact at 8:13, which was 33 minutes before it hit the WTC.

Flight 77 lost contact at 8:50, a staggering 48 minutes before it was able to fly into unprotected airspace over Washington, and hit the pentagon.

Here is a much better documentary for people who are fairly new to all this, as it shows up the official story for the work of fiction it really is...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623&q=great+conspiracy&hl=en

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Flight 77 lost contact at 8:50, a staggering 48 minutes before it was able to fly into unprotected airspace over Washington, and hit the pentagon.

I'm curious. When did you change your mind about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Jocksereire

More interesting stuff

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/StevenJones_911Revisited/StevenJones_911Revisited.wmv

Call Me Jimmy

A Primal Nut wrote:

Whoever believes this should read this page. That stuff about the note in particular is nonsense and destroys any credibility Loose Change could have. Why would the government give away clues?

ttp://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

ah ye beat me to it, maddox articulates the first thought that came to my mind.

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm curious. When did you change your mind about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Only in the last few weeks. The pentagon missile theory never really made sense to me, but from much of the physical evidence it looked like there was no way a 757 could have crashed there.

It looks like you are trying to use this in a desperate attempt to discredit me, but all you have done is prove that I am not narrow minded and entrenched in my views, like so many others...

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

They even went as far as to claim the pilot was Hanjour, who it has been well reported was basically useless. They quickly confiscated numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, which immediately raised questions. Then there was the alleged slip from Rumsfeld, when he mentioned a missile. The 5 frames they released twice actually support the theory it wasn't flight 77.

So why would they actually promote the theory if it was true?

By turning the focus to speculating on what actually hit the pentagon, they have diverted the attention away from all the incriminating facts.

The fact that on sep 10th 2001 the pentagon announced that $2.3 trillion was unaccounted for...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

The fact there was still no fighter jets over Washington nearly 90 minutes after the first plane lost contact.

The fact that the section that was hit was nearly empty and had been newly renovated. The fact that the alleged hijackers fly over the pentagon, then turned around and went completely out of their way to hit this section.

The fact that the pentagon was even hit, is one of the biggest smoking guns of all.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Only in the last few weeks. The pentagon missile theory never really made sense to me, but from much of the physical evidence it looked like there was no way a 757 could have crashed there.

Let me get this entirely clear: there was "physical evidence" that a 757 couldn't possibly have crashed into the Pentagon. On further examination, it seems that that "physical evidence" was either flawed, or didn't exist in the first place. In fact, the more you examine the actual evidence in detail, the more obvious it becomes that a 757 did, indeed, crash into the Pentagon.

Not only did a 757 crash into the Pentagon, but the plane that did so was the hijacked flight 77.

What's interesting about this is that this is precisely the conclusion Occam's Razor would have led us to in the first place. By stripping away all the extraneous theoretical crap - missiles, missing planes and passengers - you arrive at the most straightforward and logical explanation.

Now, let's examine the question of who was flying the plane. Occam's Razor once again tells us that it was Hanjour. But no, the conspiracy theorists have latched on to some circumstantial evidence that suggests he couldn't have done it. So what are we left with? Either a different suicide pilot (obviously part of the elite CIA suicide division) or a remote-controlled commercial airliner.

I'm sticking with Hanjour, thanks.

tunaman wrote:

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing too hard to reply to the rest of this.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

The pentagon missile theory never really made sense to me, but from much of the physical evidence it looked like there was no way a 757 could have crashed there.

So you're finally admitting that what things look like is not a terribly good basis on which to draw a conclusion?

It looks like you are trying to use this in a desperate attempt to discredit me,

And straight away, you prove me wrong, and use a "looks like" argument.

but all you have done is prove that I am not narrow minded and entrenched in my views, like so many others...

No. All he's done is line you up to show that you haven't abandoned the very "looks like" methodology that led you to your false conclusion in the first place, thus suggesting that you see nothing wrong with your methodology despite it leading you to passionately argue for a conclusion you now believe to be utterly incorrect.

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

Riight. Or maybe it only looks that way?

I mean...you've looked at this for some time now. You've insisted from day 1 that all we need to do is OPEN OUR EYES (capitalised an everything) and LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE (also capitalised) and we'd see what you saw. Now you're telling us that you - and many other CT types - were successfully duped. You were hoodwinked, not only into looking at the wrong evidence, but into making fools of yourselves (collectively) for years, spreading fiction.

Meanwhile, gubment agents and Men In Black no doubt giggled helplessly at how they fooled you. Oh how we...err, I mean them....laughed.

Since coming to this realisation, you've discarded many of your beliefs that you ridiculed others for not accepting, and yet accept us to believe that the ones you've held on to and the new ones you've picked up are now the real truth.

No more will teh Men In Black giggle at you. No more will you be duped by gubment disinformation.

Tell me...does this mean you'll now be frightened into silence by the Official Goons (or whoever it is) who have kept Structural Engineers around the glob living in fear for half a decade? Or will they leave you alone? Will they allow you to be the threat that they've refused to allow anyone else to become by speaknig out? Or does the fact that they don't suggest that perhaps...just perhaps...you're still barking up the wrong tree?

Meanwhile, those who've stood opposite you, debunking you, have had a chunk of what they've said against you vindicated. They haven't had to shift their feet at all. They've ignored your derision and your scorn and your insistence that if they only opened their eyes they'd see how ludicrous the very claims that you're now accepting are.

Oh how our position is weakened by your manly display of openmindedness. Truly we are doomed.

By turning the focus to speculating on what actually hit the pentagon, they have diverted the attention away from all the incriminating facts.

They didn't turn the focus. You and you ilk did. As you're now doing again.

After accepting that a belief that you have previously held as gospel is, in fact, a work of the poorest fiction, it is enlightening to see that you don't appear to have re-questioned all of your similar beliefs, but rather cling to the insistence that the gubment is behind it all and looked for a new avenue to blame them.

I mean...seriously...not only are you discarding one conspiracy theory for another, but you're blaming the governemnt for having made you believe the original one!!!

If nothing else, you're admitting that you were misled by the flimsiest of suggestive arguments even when such arguments fly in the face of reason and evidence.

Add this to the already-long-established criticism that basing your arguments of video and pictures and what other people tell you it looks like isn't a terribly effective methodology, and, well, it should be telling you something.

Its still the gubment, right? It couldn't possibly be that your willingness to believe such fiction as the hologram-cloaked Global Predator (or whatever fiction you put your faith in) was capitalised on by someone other than the government who stood to gain?

I mean...its not like the main proponents of conspiracy material are all selling the stuff. Surely it couldn't be as cynical as someone knowing there's a market of gullible types (who think they're smart and objective) who will lap it all up as long as its the government or some Seekrit Society are blamed.

They couldn't possibly have a reason to mislead you. Other than to make money.

Hmmm...maybe they're just a front for the government, and all proceeds from such projects are used to fund the disinformation campaigns.

You can have that one for free.

Maybe you can make a movie out of it, and in a few years time you, rather than Dylan Avery, can be the subject of a thread like this?

Diogenes

Bonkey an exceptional well written response.

tunaman, about this nugget that has us all rolling;

I recently had a look at the history of all the different conspiracy theories, and the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been slyly promoted from virtually day one by the US government.

What evidence do you have that the US government promoted this piece of nonsense?

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Now, let's examine the question of who was flying the plane. Occam's Razor once again tells us that it was Hanjour. But no, the conspiracy theorists have latched on to some circumstantial evidence that suggests he couldn't have done it. So what are we left with? Either a different suicide pilot (obviously part of the elite CIA suicide division) or a remote-controlled commercial airliner.

I'm sticking with Hanjour, thanks.

Despite the fact that it was widely reported he was an incredibly incompetent pilot...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109115k.jpg

Yeah I suppose it wouldn't have been that hard for a complete novice to have hit the pentagon where he allegedly did... :rolleyes:

So if flight 77 did hit the pentagon, it definitely wasn't flown by Hanjour...

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing too hard to reply to the rest of this.

So the 5 frames released twice by the US government looked like an airliner?

The naming of Hanjour as the pilot, even though he allegedly showed great skill and accuracy in hitting the pentagon, made sense to you?

Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the pentagon was just an innocent mistake?

The confiscation of numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, didn't raise any questions?

Whenever the media talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories they nearly always focus on what hit the pentagon, despite all the other real evidence of the demolition of those three buildings...

oscarBravo

Let's make this real simple.

Who was flying Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon?

Ciaran500

tunaman wrote:

The naming of Hanjour as the pilot, even though he allegedly showed great skill and accuracy in hitting the pentagon, made sense to you?

What great skill and accuracy? Look at the image you posted, thats a huge target.

tunaman wrote:

Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the pentagon was just an innocent mistake?

Its called a Freudian slip and happens all the time. Did the interviewer say missile by any chance?

tunaman wrote:

The confiscation of numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, didn't raise any questions?

It did but TBH its not suprising. Its a top secret military building that has be upgraded recently. They don't want videos of how the building reacts to attacks out in the public.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

So if flight 77 did hit the pentagon, it definitely wasn't flown by Hanjour...

And your'e as definite about this as you were about how flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon up until recently?

So the 5 frames released twice by the US government looked like an airliner?

a) They were released once by the US government. The original "release" was a leak.

b) The only people who needed to see with their own two eyes were the likes of yourself. Most people were willing to accept the other evidence that you have finally come to accept....y'know...stuff like the hundreds of eye-witnesses.

Rumsfeld saying that a missile hit the pentagon was just an innocent mistake?

You obviously haven't listened to much of Rummy's public appearances. The man is renknowned for constructing weirdly-phrased, illogical, and often downright nonsensical statements.

I'd have considered it more unlikely that someone could haev gone through everything he's said about 911 and not find something like that.

The confiscation of numerous CCTV tapes from the surrounding area, didn't raise any questions?

Given that its standard practice in an investigation, it shouldn't have done.
The non-release of the tapes by the authorities to the public is also standard practice. It would be illegal to do otherwise.
The (alleged) non-return of the tapes to their owners is the only real issue...but no CTs seem to be willing to actually verify that this is still the case, nor whether or not the owners have requested their tapes be returned. Regardless, the holding of non-evidence for long periods of time is standard fare. Ask Steve Jackson Games.

Whenever the media talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories they nearly always focus on what hit the pentagon,

And you have, of course, some sort of evidence to back this up? Not just a handful of videos you can link to, now, but something to show that you (or someone) has analysed media coverage and actually determined this.

Cause I reckon you're just making it up, personally.

despite all the other real evidence of the demolition of those three buildings...

Real evidence?

Its as real as the evidence that made you think that it was laughable to suggest flight 77 crashed into the pentagon....at best.

jc

Squaddy

I think some of Loose CHange is BS. (There's a new one now, its completely different, but i havent looked at it yet. I was talking to Dylan Avery on myspace he was saying that it could be in the cinema next year.)

You could go all day about Wtc and the pentagon but everyone always seems to forget flight 93.
Can you honestly say a plane crashed there? Look at the damage a plane done to the towers and the pentagon. Even the guy said on the news that "there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the site......"





And what about the towers coming down in free fall speed.

In loose change they talk about the plane not doing any damage at all but then they undo it by saying "and is it a coinsidence that the pentagon was hit in the only section renovated to withstand this type of attack"

Diogenes

Squaddy wrote:

You could go all day about Wtc and the pentagon but everyone always seems to forget flight 93.
Can you honestly say a plane crashed there?

Why yes several unsubstainated photos taken at an unknown time with no point of reference proves it :rolleyes:

Tell me what actually did happen to United 93 and it's passengers?

Look at the damage a plane done to the towers and the pentagon. Even the guy said on the news that "there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the site......"

Why yes a report from a eyewitness taken out of context is all the evidence we need...

And what about the towers coming down in free fall speed.

They didn't. End of discussion. tunaman is reduced to warner bros physics to try and prove that in the other thread.

In loose change they talk about the plane not doing any damage at all but then they undo it by saying "and is it a coinsidence that the pentagon was hit in the only section renovated to withstand this type of attack"

I know isn't it amazing! The one side of the building, I mean c'mon! What are the odds of that happening? Gosh I bet they'd be like 1 in 5?

Ciaran500

Squaddy wrote:

You could go all day about Wtc and the pentagon but everyone always seems to forget flight 93.
Can you honestly say a plane crashed there? Look at the damage a plane done to the towers and the pentagon. Even the guy said on the news that "there is no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the site......"

LOL

Where did those pics come from? Everyone looks so casual.


Remember the plane crashed at nearly 600mph, the plane would of been ripped to shreds and anything big burried uderground.

Squaddy

Ciaran500 wrote:

LOL

Where did those pics come from? Everyone looks so casual.


Remember the plane crashed at nearly 600mph, the plane would of been ripped to shreds and anything big burried uderground.

Probably, i couldnt care less anymore

Pongo

tunaman wrote:

Loose change is riddled with errors, which discredits all the real evidence.

You're kidding me, right? After all that's been said in the megamerge thread, 633 posts, 10,367 views, after all the arguing to and fro, the insults, the accusations, the banging heads off walls on both sides of the fence... You just throw this out there????? You have GOT to be taking the piss! Seriously, well done, it's been a brilliant wind up, you really had me going there for a while.

Of course, if you're actually serious about all this, may I suggest you go and edit each and everyone of your posts defending and promoting the Loose Change video seeing as you've now had a little think about it and decided it's actually a pile of crap.

tunaman

Ciaran500 wrote:

What great skill and accuracy? Look at the image you posted, thats a huge target.

It would be if the plane dived into the roof of the building, but the reality involved incredible accuracy, flying just a few feet off the ground...

It did but TBH its not suprising. Its a top secret military building that has be upgraded recently. They don't want videos of how the building reacts to attacks out in the public.

Hard to imagine what any real terrorists could gain from seeing how the building would react to a plane hitting hit...

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

I know isn't it amazing! The one side of the building, I mean c'mon! What are the odds of that happening? Gosh I bet they'd be like 1 in 5?

The odds are way higher than that, when you consider dving into the roof would have been the easiest way of hitting the building...

Instead, the alleged terrorists went completely out of their way to hit the newly reinforced and nearly empty section of the building...

The so called surprise attack scared Rumsfeld so much, that even though Cheney knew a plane was heading for the building, he decided to stay in his office in the other side of the building...

That Rumsfeld is quite the gambler, don't you think?

tunaman

Pongo wrote:

Of course, if you're actually serious about all this, may I suggest you go and edit each and everyone of your posts defending and promoting the Loose Change video seeing as you've now had a little think about it and decided it's actually a pile of crap.

You are going to have to point out all these posts, as I don't remember ever promoting loose change...

I may have argued in favour of the demolition of those three buildings, which is included in loose change, but that's about it...

The obvious conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job was also put forward by loose change, so do you still believe the official conspiracy theory?

billy the squid

Pongo wrote:

You're kidding me, right? After all that's been said in the megamerge thread, 633 posts, 10,367 views, after all the arguing to and fro, the insults, the accusations, the banging heads off walls on both sides of the fence... You just throw this out there????? You have GOT to be taking the piss! Seriously, well done, it's been a brilliant wind up, you really had me going there for a while.

Of course, if you're actually serious about all this, may I suggest you go and edit each and everyone of your posts defending and promoting the Loose Change video seeing as you've now had a little think about it and decided it's actually a pile of crap.

I would like to ask that you check the tone of your posts. and hold off on the comments, similar to the one in bold above.

Ciaran500

tunaman wrote:

It would be if the plane dived into the roof of the building, but the reality involved incredible accuracy, flying just a few feet off the ground...

Incredible accuracy :rolleyes:

He had a commercial pilots license so we know he was at least a comptent pilot

bonkey

Heading back dangerously on-topic...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

Witty (if virtiolic) article offering a perspective on LC which - to be honest - I tend to generally agree with the sentiments of.

And while I think of it...

Squaddy wrote:

(There's a new one now, its completely different, but i havent looked at it yet.

Completely different, eh? Is Avery not implicitly admitting that much of LC Second Edition is downright wrong by producing a new version with different theories...even if that version doesn't get released?

I'm willing to bet, though, that he's still publically supporting the claims he made, and will continue to do so until the day he has a new version published with a new truth to sell.

Its a bit like washing-powder ads. When its the new powder, its perfect and shifts everything. When this becomes the old powder, all of a sudden there's all these stains it can't remove that mean you need the new, new powder.

I was talking to Dylan Avery on myspace he was saying that it could be in the cinema next year.)

Loose Change: Final Cut was originally touted for cinema release last Monday (sep 11, 2006). I think this may even be mentioned in the wikipedia entry on LC.

DA is still talking it up, but the release date seems to be shifted back to some indeterminate future point.

To be honest, I'd be highly surprised if it ever sees the light of day other than as another internet-release which you can buy in various high-quality formats if you want to pay for the real truth.

jc

Pongo

billy the squid wrote:

I would like to ask that you check the tone of your posts. and hold off on the comments, similar to the one in bold above.

My apologies, no offence intended, I could have phrased it better....

Pongo

tunaman wrote:

You are going to have to point out all these posts, as I don't remember ever promoting loose change...

I may have argued in favour of the demolition of those three buildings, which is included in loose change, but that's about it...

The obvious conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job was also put forward by loose change, so do you still believe the official conspiracy theory?

I'll be honest, I'm not going to trawl back through the thread to find the posts, it is possible that you didn't actually support Loose Change, but you certainly did support, and argue in favour of many of the theories that were put forward in it. I just found your sudden dismissal of it, strange. No offence intended.

bonkey

In fairness to tunaman, he has consistently been extolling other videos - 911 Eyewitness, 911 Revisited (I think), possibly In Plane Site etc. - rather than LC.

Pongo

Actually you're right, I did think tunaman had originally linked to the LC video, my apologies tunaman.

tunaman

Ciaran500 wrote:

Incredible accuracy :rolleyes:

Your link doesn't work, but he allegedly flew the plane a few feet off the ground, which would take immense skill going at more than 500mph...

He had a commercial pilots license so we know he was at least a comptent pilot

Here is what one of his instructors had to say about the skills of Hanour...

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nyt_hanjour1.html

"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

tunaman

Pongo wrote:

Actually you're right, I did think tunaman had originally linked to the LC video, my apologies tunaman.

Thanks for that.

Just to add I never promoted in plane site either, as I think it is very poor.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

Heading back dangerously on-topic...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

Witty (if virtiolic) article offering a perspective on LC which - to be honest - I tend to generally agree with the sentiments of.

You agree with all the logical fallacies that article has to resort to, in trying to present what you seem to think is such a strong arguement?

You and the author of that article have this grand delusion that loose change is the best and only evidence against the official conspiracy theory...

The only response to all the evidence for demolition is resorting to appeals to authority, and stating outright that it would have been impossible, with absolute certainty...

They also feel the need to use the incredibly weak holocaust denier accusation...

Is that really the best your side can come up with?

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Your link doesn't work, but he allegedly flew the plane a few feet off the ground, which would take immense skill going at more than 500mph...

It would take immense skill to do it without crashing into something, sure.

tunaman wrote:

Here is what one of his instructors had to say about the skills of Hanour...

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nyt_hanjour1.html

"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

From the same page: "...the Phoenix staff... feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner." Ooh, a safety hazard. You mean if he flew a commercial airliner, there's a severe danger he might crash it into something?

I don't recall you answering my earlier question: who was at the controls of Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon?

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

You agree with all the logical fallacies that article has to resort to, in trying to present what you seem to think is such a strong arguement?

No, I agree with the basic premise that Dylan and his mates are either loony or liars. There is no credible argument that can be made to convince me that they genuinely believe the fiction they are peddling.

You and the author of that article have this grand delusion that loose change is the best and only evidence against the official conspiracy theory...

I can't speak for the author. Personally, I suffer no such delusion. I am aware, however, that LC is the most popular of its kind.

The only response to all the evidence for demolition

There is no evidence. There are allegations that evidence exists, typically backed up by flawed logic, impossible physics, and frequent abuse of anyone who disagrees with them.

As evidence of this last claim, I draw reference to the allegation that am possessed of a "grand delusion" in this post, frequent comments about my posting disinformation, etc.

As evidence of the first two claims, I suggest anyone simply read the "megamerge" thread.

is resorting to appeals to authority,

Like your demolitions expert commenting on WTC7 that you referenced in the post you added to the other thread at a similar time to this one?

and stating outright that it would have been impossible, with absolute certainty...

That's what you insist about the official explanation. Are you now admitting its an unreasonable position for you to have taken?

They also feel the need to use the incredibly weak holocaust denier accusation...

Weak in the sense that you believe the evidence to support it is somehow false?

Is that really the best your side can come up with?

Is this another post where you try to score as many points off your "disinformation tactics" list as possible?

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

It would take immense skill to do it without crashing into something, sure.

If case you forgot he didn't supposedly just dive into the roof of the building...

From the same page: "...the Phoenix staff... feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner." Ooh, a safety hazard. You mean if he flew a commercial airliner, there's a severe danger he might crash it into something?

As in he couldn't control the plane...

I don't recall you answering my earlier question: who was at the controls of Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon?

If you are honest enough to admit the reason you ask if because you don't know either...

It really isn't important...

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

There is no evidence. There are allegations that evidence exists, typically backed up by flawed logic, impossible physics, and frequent abuse of anyone who disagrees with them.

There is plenty of evidence, but you pretend you don't see it...

Then when you are presented with articles like these you fail to form any defence...

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Engineering Fantasies

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/index.html

There is no evidence.

What's this then?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Like your demolitions expert commenting on WTC7 that you referenced in the post you added to the other thread at a similar time to this one?

I wanted to see how long it would take for you to try to discredit him...

That's what you insist about the official explanation.

Welcome to reality...

Are you now admitting its an unreasonable position for you to have taken?

In reality it's unreasonable for you continually trying to defend an impossible lie...

Is this another post where you try to score as many points off your "disinformation tactics" list as possible?

You are the one trying to make a game out of this...

PullMyFinger!

tunaman wrote:

What's this then?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Great documentary. Thanks.

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

If case you forgot he didn't supposedly just dive into the roof of the building...

No, but if he had, I'd imagine you'd be on here telling us all what an incredibly skillful maneouvre such a dive was.

tunaman wrote:

If you are honest enough to admit the reason you ask if because you don't know either...

Oh look, you just called me dishonest. Charming debating tactic.

I don't "know" who flew it, in the sense that I didn't happen to look into the cockpit in the moments before it crashed. I "know" Hanjour flew it, in the sense that there's not one tiny shred of credible evidence that anyone else was flying it. As neatly supported by your next little gem:

tunaman wrote:

It really isn't important...

Now that's just hilarious. What you're saying is, it doesn't matter who flew an airplane into the Pentagon - as long as it's not who the official story says it was?

I mean, seriously - don't you want to lend any credibility to your version of events?

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

There is plenty of evidence, but you pretend you don't see it...

As I said - the allegation that evidence exists. Evidence can be shown to be significant. Nothing you've presented thus far can be shown to be significant, and a hell of a lot of it can be shown to be downright wrong.

Then when you are presented with articles like these you fail to form any defence...

Are these articles previously posted that I've admitted to being being stumped by, or are you just making up allegations here?

Regardless, I've no doubt that you have no shortage of articles to throw at me one after another. To date, I believe the only ones I've refused to comment on are the ones where you've demonstrated an unwillingness to discuss them yourself. Oh, a bit like this latest one.

Now...why am I doing this? It should be clear, but on the assumption that you honestly can't see why, or on the possibilty that someone else can't figure it out themselves, I'll explain.

Assume you've read the article. You want me to comment on it, so I have to put the same time as you into reading it. Then I have to do background research regarding my position. I'll do you the cuortesy of assuming you do likewise before presenting your sources, although I have had reason to question that on occasion.

So, you present your source, writing a one-liner "oh, look at this one, bet you can't answer it". I, in turn, am then expected to write a full rebuttal of someone else's work. Consider that a 2-3 minute video of yoru demolition expert took over 1/2 an hour to write a rebuttal for, and think of how many hours of material you've posted, ignoring even the written material (where an A4 page owuld contain as much text as maybe 5-10 minutes of video).

So, if we exclude the reading and analysis that I assume we both do, what takes you maybe 10 seconds requires a response from me that could be of the order of hours, and require thousands of words to do it justice.

If I ask you to make a case about what you think of the contents, I get some shallow refusal on the grounds that I'm trying to avoid reading it.

If I refuse to bite I get accused of not having an answer.

If ist something I've never seen before, I get accused of not havnig a response before ever being asked for one!

And if I do anything less than the full rebuttal that a lengthy article would require, you can start pointing at the bits I haven't addressed, or the bits where I've had to shorten my argument to avoid writing a book.

In short, your argument isn't being based at all on the evidence and how well either of us can put our case. Its based on how you can literally swamp me with sources, put 0 effort into making your own case, and then accuse me of being stumped, unwilling to engage, or whatever, because I'm not willing to spend hours (cumulatively days, weeks or even months) rebutting each single one in detail.

I've asked numerous times - if you have an article with a new claim, then tell me what the new claim is, where in the article it is, and I'll address that. You refuse. What possible grounds do you have for refusal? I'm stumped. Its not like most of these things aren't at least 90% material we've already covered.

Why is it too much to ask you to tell me which bits you feel need responding to that haven't been previously addressed?

If what you want is an admission that I can't compete with your shotgun tactics...then sure. No problem. here goes : I cannot singlehandedly respond to every article and video made on the 911 subject that you can find and post a link to. No-one can.

If you want to take that as a sign of victory, or of how superior your position is, you go right ahead.

Alternately, if you're actually interested in discussing the issue, or even going to the extreme of arguing your own case then I'll be more than happy to respond to any case you make. I do note, at this point, however, that you've refused any challenge I've set you which involves you doing exactly this.

As I've pointed out before, it is fascinating that you produce article after article with a cry of "but what about this then". When its been challenged and shown to be far less clear-cut (if not downright misleading), you don't defend it, or argue your case for long. Ignoring the sidetracking with rubbish like your disinforamtion claims, you generally just switch to a new article with a new cry of "but what about this then"!

...and the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before.....

What exactly are you trying to prove? That the list of things you fervently believe in, but which upon examination are shown to be far from unquestionable...is endless? OK. You've done it. You have an effectiveyl endless source of material. I'm convinced of that. I don't think there's anynoe here who isn't convinced of that.

But that's all you're proving. You don't have a consistent position, other than to challenge the official story based on any grounds whatsoever, even when those challenges contradict each other. So how can you be proving anything else? About the only thing your sources all agree on is that there's something suspicious...but not what that something is, why its suspicious, or anything else.

I wanted to see how long it would take for you to try to discredit him...

Brilliant.

Don't bother going to the effort of explaining why my critique is flawed, or why the issues I point out don't raise the uncertainty I make out....just make a passing comment that suggests I am trying to discredit the man himself rather than the methodology used to reach the alleged conclusions reached.

And true to my description - upon being challenged, you ditch this line of argument and present new "bet this'll stump you" links, with no argument of your own.

trunaman wrote:

stating outright that it would have been impossible, with absolute certainty...
...
Is that really the best your side can come up with?

Welcome to reality...

In reality it's unreasonable for you continually trying to defend an impossible lie...

I'm quite happy for you to admit that this is your reality - that you are taking a position that you yourself argue is weak.

You asked the right question. Is that really the best you can come up with?

See, I reckon you'll be hard pushed to find where anyone supporting the official story has claimed things to be impossible. What they have typically done is said they don't believe it is possible and challenged you to explain the issues they see. You have, incidentally, never once met those challenges, without raising more questions that you don't have answers to.

You are the one trying to make a game out of this...

All I did is show that this is yet another situation where you have clearly used the very tactics you claim are unacceptable.

But yes...to be honest....I am making a game out of this. Here's how and why:

You refuse to make your own case, preferring rather to act as a "linker" to other people's cases, which you all-too-often refuse to discuss in detail preferring to link to new material instead.

So other than when you do raise an interesting-enough point for me to be bothered taking your bait, I'm settling for showing your tactics, methods, reasoning and so forth for what they are - misdirection.

You want me to stop playing this game, then stop playing yours. Stop shotgunning hour after hour of video, and document after document, and make your own case.

jc

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

As I said - the allegation that evidence exists. Evidence can be shown to be significant. Nothing you've presented thus far can be shown to be significant, and a hell of a lot of it can be shown to be downright wrong.

Your constant AVOIDANCE tactics are pathetic...

Family members of the victims, help present COMPELLING EVIDENCE of the LIARS trying to cover-up the crime...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=9%2F11+press+for+truth

$3M initially given to investigate 9/11...

That's about $1,000 per person killed...

Does that sound right to YOU?

Your continual DEFENCE of known liars makes you a prime candidate for YOUR chip...

Why don't you go and get your chip now? as you know it's for YOUR own PROTECTION...

While the rest of us will face up to the UNDENIABLE reality that we are all being DECEIVED...

But that's all you're proving. You don't have a consistent position, other than to challenge the official story based on any grounds whatsoever, even when those challenges contradict each other. So how can you be proving anything else? About the only thing your sources all agree on is that there's something suspicious...but not what that something is, why its suspicious, or anything else.

If people like YOU held up the official story and the liars telling to sell it to you, to the same standards, then you would REALISE how WEAK your position is...

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

Your constant AVOIDANCE tactics are pathetic...

Yes yes. I know.

If you ever get tired of the ad hominem attacks, though, actually presenting this evidence you talk about would be much more convincing to do instead.

Family members of the victims, help present COMPELLING EVIDENCE of the LIARS trying to cover-up the crime...

So...COMPELLING EVIDENCE, eh? Capitalised 'n all. Must be impressive. All I have to do is watch another video that you've posted, figure out which bits of it you actually want me to address, and then spend some hours explaining why this is not evidence that the buildings were blown up, and we can start the loop over again.

Or you could summarise their points, tell me where in the video I can find what it is I'm supposed to be lookign for, and how verbal evidence from family members of hte deceased is somehow supposed to be evidence that buildings were demolished in the first place....and not, say, evidence of politicians covering their asses because the screw-ups of 911 should have resulted in a load of heads rolling even assuming there was no government complicity.


So go for it. stop me dodging these issues like you keep saying I'm doing by just telling me what it is I'm supposed to be looking for in this link.

$3M initially given to investigate 9/11...

That's about $1,000 per person killed...

Does that sound right to YOU?

I wasn't aware investigations were budgeted on a death-toll head-count basis, but since you ask....no, it doesn't sound right to me. It also doesn't sound like evidence that the buildings were demolished to me either. Nor does it sound like anything but a carefully edited set of details because since then far more than $3M has been spent. Care to tell us how much, and how much that works out to per head? Or if not, would you care to tell me how much would sound right to you per head, and I'll let you know if you're in the ballpark.

Your continual DEFENCE of known liars makes you a prime candidate for YOUR chip...
Why don't you go and get your chip now? as you know it's for YOUR own PROTECTION...

Well, thats a convincing argument. Very nicely done. Capitalising those words was a particularly nice touch....helps add that extra "oomph" to your logic, dontchya think?

Anyway...lets not get diverted here. Where were we? Oh yes...

Tip for the next time, though....if you drop the capitalisation, it might come across as even more resonable.

If people like YOU held up the official story and the liars telling to sell it to you, to the same standards, then you would REALISE how WEAK your position is...

I've lost track of the number of times I've had to tell you this...but I'm enough of a sucker to give it one last shot:

The work I defend from tirades like yours is the scientific work carried out by NIST. I have not defended the Comission Report, the FEMA report, the position or findings of the US Administration in general, nor any other related findings, documents, groups or whatever it is you want to accuse me of this time round. I have used information from some of thse sources when I believe it to be accurate and relevant, but never once have I suggested those works are beyond criticism nor defended them from valid and rational criticism.

Haven't done it, won't do it.

Furthermore, I have made it clear on occasion that there are grounds to challenge certain aspects of the investigations carried out, and also that I do not accept some of the findings.

I even offered to give you a question-on-question thread, you vs. me, where we'd see who dodged the most stuff. You could have started with "So bonkey, which parts of the whole affair do you not accept".

Did you accept my offer? No....you threw it back in my face along with another heap of ad hominem attacks.

Not once have you ever sought to ask about what I do and to not accept. You have taken my defence of the NIST final reports and my criticism of conrpiracy theories for their own flaws as some sort of indicator that lets you assume I'm 100% behind everything the officials say about 911....despite numerous incidents where it is blindingly true that this is simply not the case (e.g. my response to the allegations that the Pentagon lied to the Comission).

Its ironic that this is apparently typical of how you've reached your conclusions on 911 itself. You aren't interested in all the facts. You ignore facts that don't suit your conclusion. When those facts are pointed out to you, you resort to bluster, ad hominem attacks and so forth.

I've pointed out the flaws in your various arguments. Thats what a skeptic does. If you had thought to ever ask me (prior to this), I'd have pointed out where I believe there were and are flaws in the handling and findings of the affair.

But no. Why ask me to clarify comments I've made to that effect, when simply you can simply decide to believe something else suits you better. Having decided it to be true, you then parade it to the world, repeatedly, as though it were an unquestionable truth to which there are no honest counterpoints.

Again - you demonstrate either sloppy research (in not ever finding out what those bits I said I don't accept were), or wilful misdirection (in ignoring that I've even said it).

As it is, I'm done with you. Quite frankly, you're simply not worth any more effort. Anyone reading this thread who isn't already convinced of that isn't going to be convinced by anything new I can say either, so I can't even take the position that I continue to address you for someone else's benefit.

We're done. Good day sir.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

If you ever get tired of the ad hominem attacks, though, actually presenting this evidence you talk about would be much more convincing to do instead.

You really are incredibly sensitive...

How is calling you out for using avoidance tactics, an ad hominem attack?

So go for it. stop me dodging these issues like you keep saying I'm doing by just telling me what it is I'm supposed to be looking for in this link.

Have you even looked at the 9/11 commission in any detail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up in late 2002...

The Commission's Executive Director was Philip D. Zelikow...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”

Back to the so called independant investigation...

President Bush had initially appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to head the commission, but he withdrew shortly afterward because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/

The following all refused to testify under oath...

President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore all gave private testimony. President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on testifying together, while Clinton and Gore met with the panel separately.

Claims of bias within the commission

Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest.

They are too numerous to mention here...

I wasn't aware investigations were budgeted on a death-toll head-count basis, but since you ask....no, it doesn't sound right to me. It also doesn't sound like evidence that the buildings were demolished to me either. Nor does it sound like anything but a carefully edited set of details because since then far more than $3M has been spent.

I stated the fact that the 9/11 commission was initially given just $3M...

Did I say it was evidence the buildings were demolished?

It's obvious evidence of a massive cover-up...

Care to tell us how much, and how much that works out to per head? Or if not, would you care to tell me how much would sound right to you per head, and I'll let you know if you're in the ballpark.

Human life cannot be given a price, especially not based on pieces of paper...

These people however have no problem putting a price on life...

The work I defend from tirades like yours is the scientific work carried out by NIST.

The fact that you continue to defend them, even though their work was basically anti-science, is sad...

They were given a conclusion and worked backwards, which you continue to avoid even admitting, let alone trying to explain...

I even offered to give you a question-on-question thread, you vs. me, where we'd see who dodged the most stuff. You could have started with "So bonkey, which parts of the whole affair do you not accept".

Did you accept my offer? No....you threw it back in my face along with another heap of ad hominem attacks.

That was because you started with a ridiculous loaded question, and then you took offense when I threw it back in your face...

Its ironic that this is apparently typical of how you've reached your conclusions on 911 itself. You aren't interested in all the facts. You ignore facts that don't suit your conclusion. When those facts are pointed out to you, you resort to bluster, ad hominem attacks and so forth.

Show me all these relevant facts you are talking about?

I've pointed out the flaws in your various arguments. Thats what a skeptic does. If you had thought to ever ask me (prior to this), I'd have pointed out where I believe there were and are flaws in the handling and findings of the affair.

You have told me that you think it was mere incompetence at all levels, during the months before and again on the day of the attacks...

Which is exactly the same excuses as the 9/11 commission came out with...

But no. Why ask me to clarify comments I've made to that effect, when simply you can simply decide to believe something else suits you better. Having decided it to be true, you then parade it to the world, repeatedly, as though it were an unquestionable truth to which there are no honest counterpoints.

What you call counterpoints, are in reality excuses...

I have never claimed to know the truth of what happened, as we are not supposed to ever find out...

Then again Bush is now talking about operatives and explosives in the buildings...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

The alleged mastermind (KSM) was reported killed...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Are they now going to try to change their story?

billy the squid

Tunaman, I will ask you once and once only to tone down your comments to other users. comments such as "pathetic" are unacceptable. also your use of all caps is comming accross as slightly agressive.

Please keep this in check. Thank you.

Nick_oliveri

tunaman wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html

Oh god, this guy is still going on about WMD. :mad:

tunaman wrote:

Double post

0_o

To this idea that America may be creating terrorists. I'd say this has value now! Things are going to get an awful lot worse. I've been watching "The Road to Guantanamo" and this became obvious.

If i was an innocent party in that detention centre or any others i would want revenge very quicky upon release. The same thing i suppose with your house being shelled by American artillery and your families being killed for some shítty reason.

I dont get it all now, im just confused with all of this pure búllshít in regard to human life and moral issues.

BUSH (in relation to Geneva Convention) wrote:

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like - it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.[/FONT]

I have got two words for you Bush, one begins with "F"!! Guess the rest you stupid twat!!

Someone give Bush a dose of stress positions, regular beatings, sensory dep, humility, lies, a black site transfer and sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution.

Yes i was taken back by this film. How good is it to say that you have never been persecuted? Its brilliant!

billy the squid

one week ban for Nick_oliveri.

Nick was referring to GWB and not tunaman as it initially appeared, so no ban. sorry nick.

Nick_oliveri

No bodgers! I can see how that post may have come across. Im happy in one way that GW is not a boards user!!

tunaman wrote:

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

The alleged mastermind (KSM) was reported killed...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html

He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Are they now going to try to change their story?

It could be said that he was talking about the hijackers being told in advance where to hit the buildings to cause maximum casualties.

Explosives being the jet fuel. But why would he refer to the hijackers as operatives? Maybe he was talking about a different event altogether!

He doesn't refer to it as 9/11, the letters he is most likely to utter in a speech!

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

The fact that you continue to defend [NIST], even though their work was basically anti-science, is sad...

This quote sums you up, tunaman. You are completely and utterly unqualified to make this statement. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You claim to know for a fact what didn't happen, but also claim that we can't know what did happen. And then you have the unspeakable gall to call scientists "anti-science". Unbelievable.

tunaman wrote:

They were given a conclusion and worked backwards...

Prove it.