Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Slate Articles on 911

Options
  • 07-09-2011 4:56pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭


    The Slate are running a series of articles on 911 this week


    http://www.slate.com/id/2302851/

    Of particular note is yesterday's


    http://www.slate.com/id/2302834
    What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them. Why it did not is his new focus. "Where I am now is, I've whittled it down to a very basic statement that I think a lot of people can agree on: There was a cover-up of some kind," Avery says. "The only question is what they were covering up, how far [up] it goes, how deep it runs, and how many asses would be on the line if the truth actually came out."



    He says he still "support the movement," but he also acknowledges getting "sucked in" deeper than he should have been, into a "hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off."

    So do over has quit. I wonder will he apologise to the family members of passengers he mocked.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czba6cA5BVQ

    Or give back some of the money he's amassed from spreading lies.


Comments

  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The Slate are running a series of articles on 911 this week


    http://www.slate.com/id/2302851/

    Of particular note is yesterday's


    http://www.slate.com/id/2302834



    So do over has quit. I wonder will he apologise to the family members of passengers he mocked.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czba6cA5BVQ

    Or give back some of the money he's amassed from spreading lies.
    So do over has quit.
    :confused:

    It's not really topical is it? Nobody cares about Loose Change or Dylan Avery anymore except for "debunkers".

    BTW. There is no grounds to say he was lying so that is a cheap dig.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    :confused:

    Wait aren't I on ignore?
    It's not really topical is it? Nobody cares about Loose Change or Dylan Avery anymore except for "debunkers".

    Gosh the maker of loose change, the biggest 911 conspiracy theory documentary gives a interview to the Slate where he announces he doesn't believe most 9/11 conspiracy theories anymore days before the tenth anniversary of the attack and you don't think it's topical?
    BTW. There is no grounds to say he was lying so that is a cheap dig.

    He lied when he said would donate more money to 911 victims than the makers of United 93.

    A cheap shot? At a scumbag like Avery and Bermas who accused Benard Brown of murdering his own son?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-4Nf5vqHpA&feature=player_embedded

    f*ck Avery thats not a cheap dig it's a matter of fact that he's scum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The Slate are running a series of articles on 911 this week


    http://www.slate.com/id/2302851/

    Of particular note is yesterday's


    http://www.slate.com/id/2302834



    So do over has quit. I wonder will he apologise to the family members of passengers he mocked.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czba6cA5BVQ

    Or give back some of the money he's amassed from spreading lies.

    Do I assume Avery is now a disinfo agent planted to discredit the movement?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    Do I assume Avery is now a disinfo agent planted to discredit the movement?

    Now????
    07-02-2011, 03:11
    I've always considered Jim Corr as courageous and sincere if a little misled by Alex Jones/Loose Change disinfo.
    #1


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Now????

    Loose Change came out in 2005, your post was from earlier this year.

    Anyway the point I was making is there has been a pattern from the CT movement to turn on anyone who says too much or gets off script. Don't get me wrong I'm all for Avery and Jones getting the flak they have richly earned.

    I remember we had Anthony Hall on here last year talking about Michael Shermer. He complained about Shermer attacking his character but spent his whole posts attacking Shermers character. I raised quite a number of points to him and the only thing he did in response was criticise my grammar.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    Loose Change came out in 2005, your post was from earlier this year.
    So?

    Loose Change has been suspect from the start for 3 reasons

    1) It's factual errors
    2) It's association with Alex Jones
    3) The amount of mainstream media attention it got.

    Can you name another alternative type 9-11 film that got even 10% of the media attention that Loose Change got?

    It's a reasonable proposition (through an open mind) that if it was someone other than the blokes training on monkey bars conspiracy theory that the same people behind it would have made plans to cover there tracks don't you think?
    meglome wrote: »
    Anyway the point I was making is there has been a pattern from the CT movement to turn on anyone who says too much or gets off script.
    This is a lazy and judgemental point. I'm assuming the "CT movement" involves anyone with any alternative ideas? There is no script, I don't know where you lot get this from, the skeptic movement?

    Your creating in your head an "us" and "them" scenario where anyone that disagrees with you is "them". This is just narcissm.
    meglome wrote: »
    I remember we had Anthony Hall on here last year talking about Michael Shermer. He complained about Shermer attacking his character but spent his whole posts attacking Shermers character. I raised quite a number of points to him and the only thing he did in response was criticise my grammar.

    Perhaps you also remember that Shermer conflating him with a holocaust denier? That is reason enough for anyone to be upset IMO


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    So?

    Loose Change has been suspect from the start for 3 reasons

    1) It's factual errors
    2) It's association with Alex Jones
    3) The amount of mainstream media attention it got.

    Can you name another alternative type 9-11 film that got even 10% of the media attention that Loose Change got?

    You or I might not agree with all the attention Loose Change got but it certainly did get a lot of attention. It was shown on television which is very unusual for this type of 'home made' film. The fact he says now he doesn't believe most CT's about 911 is very significant indeed and I can't understand why anyone would say otherwise.
    It's a reasonable proposition (through an open mind) that if it was someone other than the blokes training on monkey bars conspiracy theory that the same people behind it would have made plans to cover there tracks don't you think?

    Don't get you.
    This is a lazy and judgemental point. I'm assuming the "CT movement" involves anyone with any alternative ideas? There is no script, I don't know where you lot get this from, the skeptic movement?

    Your creating in your head an "us" and "them" scenario where anyone that disagrees with you is "them". This is just narcissm.

    There have been a number of very high profile CT'ers who have been turned on. Ex posters boys and girls for the movement, it's very much you're with them or against them.

    The only sides I see are those who will accept what the evidence shows or those who don't. I have no issue with anyone using sceptic of truther for convenience.
    Perhaps you also remember that Shermer conflating him with a holocaust denier? That is reason enough for anyone to be upset IMO

    As I recall there was some misunderstanding about what had been said, an honest mistake I thought. What I can go on is he had a real go at Shermer and then at my grammar. Really don't care that he had a go but it is indicative of how he operates.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    You or I might not agree with all the attention Loose Change got but it certainly did get a lot of attention. It was shown on television which is very unusual for this type of 'home made' film.
    I know. That's what I was saying. The question is why?
    meglome wrote: »
    The fact he says now he doesn't believe most CT's about 911 is very significant indeed and I can't understand why anyone would say otherwise.
    It is because Dylan Avery's opinion is irrelevant. Why is his opinion suddenly relevant or "very significant" to you?

    meglome wrote: »
    Don't get you.
    The point I am trying to make is that if you look at it objectively i.e remove the bias of your conclusion on 9.11 and consider that it may have involved someone other than Al-Qaeda it is reasonable to assume that the cover up is part of the same plan by the perpertrators.
    meglome wrote: »
    There have been a number of very high profile CT'ers who have been turned on. Ex posters boys and girls for the movement, it's very much you're with them or against them.
    I'm going to politely ask you to stop generalising. There is no movement. This goes back to you seeing the debate as black and white. What to you is "CTers" getting turned on is actually "CTers" being sceptical of their sources (something you erroneously claimed doesn't happen)
    meglome wrote: »
    The only sides I see are those who will accept what the evidence shows or those who don't. I have no issue with anyone using sceptic of truther for convenience.
    You have no issue with being simplistic out of laziness then. Have you any issue with people using the N-word to describe black out of convenience so we don't have to learn the names of the African states?And let me guess your on the side that "accepts what the evidence shows"? Right? How lucky for you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    I know. That's what I was saying. The question is why?

    We'll I assume it's because he helped put together a slick movie about a big conspiracy. One that played into many people's beliefs that the attack couldn't have been carried out by some Arabs in a cave. A movie that did more to promote a conspiracy than anything else.
    It is because Dylan Avery's opinion is irrelevant. Why is his opinion suddenly relevant or "very significant" to you?

    It's very significant as one of the main movers in the CT movement is now saying he doesn't believe in most of the CT's. I've always wondered why people like Avery promoted the conspiracy when they must have known many of things they were saying were untrue. So I suspect now he's made some money out of this but the money has dried up and he has no reason to carry it on.
    The point I am trying to make is that if you look at it objectively i.e remove the bias of your conclusion on 9.11 and consider that it may have involved someone other than Al-Qaeda it is reasonable to assume that the cover up is part of the same plan by the perpertrators.

    Let's be clear about this I had no opinion on who carried out 911 when it happened. I surmised that it fit the suicide type attack that Muslim extremists had carried out in the past. I didn't think it was too easy or too hard, I knew I had no frame of reference to know either way. I investigated and while I couldn't rule out the US government being involved I could rule out most of the CT's for numerous reasons.
    I'm going to politely ask you to stop generalising. There is no movement. This goes back to you seeing the debate as black and white. What to you is "CTers" getting turned on is actually "CTers" being sceptical of their sources (something you erroneously claimed doesn't happen).

    Sorry but there is a large conspiracy movement out there and many people making money out of it. I think we'll have to disagree on the sources issue, as I cannot count how many times I've seen CT'ers dismiss the official reports and yet believe half truths from CT sites. Worse even when you show exactly how they are being fooled they still don't want to believe it.
    You have no issue with being simplistic out of laziness then. Have you any issue with people using the N-word to describe black out of convenience so we don't have to learn the names of the African states?And let me guess your on the side that "accepts what the evidence shows"? Right? How lucky for you.

    Look if I had to spend ten minutes explaining who I was talking about every time I wanted to talk about people who have an interest in CT's it would make posting a nightmare. Some placing in boxes has to be done for simplicity sake. And yes I'll believe anything that has evidence to back it up, I don't care who they are.


Advertisement